Search

Which costs and benefits to consider in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions remains an area of much controversy. Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained is an important cost category that is normally ignored in economic evaluations, irrespective of the perspective chosen for the analysis. National guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research largely endorse this practice, either by explicitly requiring researchers to exclude these costs from the analysis or by leaving inclusion or exclusion up to the discretion of the analyst. However, the inclusion of unrelated medical costs in life-years gained appears to be gaining support in the literature.This article provides an overview of the discussions to date. The inclusion of unrelated medical costs in life-years gained seems warranted, in terms of both optimality and internal and external consistency. We use an example of a smoking-cessation intervention to highlight the consequences of different practices of accounting for costs and effects in economic evaluations. Only inclusion of all costs and effects of unrelated medical care in life-years gained can be considered both internally and externally consistent. Including or excluding unrelated future medical costs may have important distributional consequences, especially for interventions that substantially increase length of life. Regarding practical objections against inclusion of future costs, it is important to note that it is becoming increasingly possible to accurately estimate unrelated medical costs in life-years gained. We therefore conclude that the inclusion of unrelated medical costs should become the new standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mortality rates in neonatal surgery have dropped markedly, illustrating the enormous progress made. Yet, new questions have arisen. To mention one, health care budgets have tightened. It follows that the effects of medical interventions should be weighted against their costs. As evidence was particularly sparse, we set out to analyse cost-effectiveness of neonatal surgery. The purpose of this article is to summarise our findings and to review recent studies. Moreover, this article explains the relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis and explores how cost-effectiveness interacts with other determinants of health care priority setting. Our research revealed that treatments for two common diagnostic categories in neonatal surgery (congenital anorectal malformations and congenital diaphragmatic hernia) produce good cost-effectiveness. Other groups also published cost-effectiveness studies in the field of neonatal surgery, although their number is still small. Contemporaneously, the economic aspects of health care have captured the interest of policy makers. Importantly, this is not to say that there are no other factors playing a role in priority setting, foremost among which are ethical questions and arguments of equity. This article concludes that, according to present evidence, neonatal surgery yields good value for money and contributes to equity in health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. Methods/design: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. Discussion: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution describes the entitlements in Dutch health care and explores how these entitlements are determined and to whom they apply. The focus is on services of curative care. No comprehensive positive or negative list of individual services is included in formal laws. Instead, the legislation states only what general types of medical services are covered and generally the “usual care” criterion determines to which interventions patients are entitled. This criterion is not very restrictive and yields local variations in service provision, which are moderated by practice guidelines. It is conceivable, however, that the recent introduction of the DBC financing system will change the reimbursement and therefore benefit-setting policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Looks at the decision by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to abandon differential discounting of future health. Author's view that the decision is a step backwards and will impact funding decisions; Discussion of how discounting can have strong influence on cost effectiveness ratios for priority setting, especially in preventive interventions; Debate surrounding the current practice of equal discounting.