Search

The efficiency-frontier approach (EFA) to health economic evaluation aims to benchmark the relative efficiency of new drugs with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of non-dominated comparators. By explicitly considering any differences in health outcomes and costs, it enhances the internal reference pricing (IRP) policy that was officially endorsed by Germany as the first country worldwide in 1989. However, the EFA has been repeatedly criticized since its official endorsement in 2009. Areas covered: This perspective aims to stimulate the debate by discussing whether the main objections to the EFA are technically valid, irrespective of national contextual factors in Germany with reservations towards using cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) thresholds. Moreover, we comparatively assessed whether the objections are truly unique to the EFA or apply equally to IRP and cost-effectiveness thresholds. Expert commentary: The plethora of objections to the EFA (n = 20) has obscured that many objections are neither technically valid nor unique to the EFA. Compared with cost-effectiveness thresholds, only two objections apply uniquely to the EFA and concern intended key properties: (1) no external thresholds are needed and (2) the EFA is sensitive to price changes of comparators. Combining these policies and developing them further are under-utilized research areas.

Background: Estimating input costs for Markov models in health economic evaluations requires health state-specific costing. This is a challenge in mental illnesses such as depression, as interventions are not clearly related to health states. We present a hybrid approach to health state-specific cost estimation for a German health economic evaluation of antidepressants. Methods: Costs were determined from the perspective of the community of persons insured by statutory health insurance (“SHI insuree perspective”) and included costs for outpatient care, inpatient care, drugs, and psychotherapy. In an additional step, costs for rehabilitation and productivity losses were calculated from the societal perspective. We collected resource use data in a stepwise hierarchical approach using SHI claims data, where available, followed by data from clinical guidelines and expert surveys. Bottom-up and top-down costing approaches were combined. Results: Depending on the drug strategy and health state, the average input costs varied per patient per 8-week Markov cycle. The highest costs occurred for agomelatine in the health state first-line treatment (FT) (“FT relapse”) with €506 from the SHI insuree perspective and €724 from the societal perspective. From both perspectives, the lowest costs (excluding placebo) were €55 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the health state “FT remission.” Conclusion: To estimate costs in health economic evaluations of treatments for depression, it can be necessary to link different data sources and costing approaches systematically to meet the requirements of the decision-analytic model. As this can increase complexity, the corresponding calculations should be presented transparently. The approach presented could provide useful input for future models.

Background: Estimating input costs for Markov models in health economic evaluations requires health state-specific costing. This is a challenge in mental illnesses such as depression, as interventions are not clearly related to health states. We present a hybrid approach to health state-specific cost estimation for a German health economic evaluation of antidepressants. Methods: Costs were determined from the perspective of the community of persons insured by statutory health insurance (“SHI insuree perspective”) and included costs for outpatient care, inpatient care, drugs, and psychotherapy. In an additional step, costs for rehabilitation and productivity losses were calculated from the societal perspective. We collected resource use data in a stepwise hierarchical approach using SHI claims data, where available, followed by data from clinical guidelines and expert surveys. Bottom-up and top-down costing approaches were combined. Results: Depending on the drug strategy and health state, the average input costs varied per patient per 8-week Markov cycle. The highest costs occurred for agomelatine in the health state first-line treatment (FT) (“FT relapse”) with €506 from the SHI insuree perspective and €724 from the societal perspective. From both perspectives, the lowest costs (excluding placebo) were €55 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the health state “FT remission.” Conclusion: To estimate costs in health economic evaluations of treatments for depression, it can be necessary to link different data sources and costing approaches systematically to meet the requirements of the decision-analytic model. As this can increase complexity, the corresponding calculations should be presented transparently. The approach presented could provide useful input for future models.

The efficiency-frontier approach (EFA) to health economic evaluation aims to benchmark the relative efficiency of new drugs with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of non-dominated comparators. By explicitly considering any differences in health outcomes and costs, it enhances the internal reference pricing (IRP) policy that was officially endorsed by Germany as the first country worldwide in 1989. However, the EFA has been repeatedly criticized since its official endorsement in 2009. Areas covered: This perspective aims to stimulate the debate by discussing whether the main objections to the EFA are technically valid, irrespective of national contextual factors in Germany with reservations towards using cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) thresholds. Moreover, we comparatively assessed whether the objections are truly unique to the EFA or apply equally to IRP and cost-effectiveness thresholds. Expert commentary: The plethora of objections to the EFA (n = 20) has obscured that many objections are neither technically valid nor unique to the EFA. Compared with cost-effectiveness thresholds, only two objections apply uniquely to the EFA and concern intended key properties: (1) no external thresholds are needed and (2) the EFA is sensitive to price changes of comparators. Combining these policies and developing them further are under-utilized research areas.