Biomedical subjects

André Ament

Publications and source records attributed to André Ament.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = -0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD -0.00, 95% CI = -0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all P-values <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patient and population preferences, suggesting that both can be used to allocate scarce resources.

Consumer Behavior↗

PubMed2005

Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to budgetary constraints and reallocative restrictions.

BACKGROUND: Present cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) provide not all information necessary for decision-making. One of the factors that hamper decision-making is the difficulty in reallocating resources to new technologies. In a CEA, the incremental costs and incremental benefits of a new technology are calculated. In this article we focus on the incremental cost side. The underlying assumption in socio-economic evaluation is that resources from the substituted alternatives can be used to finance the new technology. In practice, however, not all resources are becoming available to introduce the alternative. The budgets in health care are rather fixed and shifting from one alternative to another or from one sector to another is often impossible. Even within a budget, the personnel and material resources are usually not entirely usable for the new technology, and sometimes not at all. Therefore, the present CEA outcomes might overestimate the cost-effectiveness in practice, which might influence implementation of a new technology. AIM: To optimise the usefulness of economic evaluation for health care decision-making by correcting the incremental costs of a new technology for the possible limitations in reallocating resources and adjusting budgets in health care. METHODS: Case Research. Literature, data from two completed CEAs and interviews with decision makers in the hospital setting. RESULTS: Case 1: The combined outpatient and home-treatment of psoriasis--In a CEA it was calculated that the new technology lead to much lower cost, given the same effects. The direct costs of this technology comprise personnel, material and capacity costs. Personnel and capacity are inflexible with regard to reallocation, at least in the short term. Considering these reallocative restrictions results show that the cost-savings of the combined treatment are in the short run significantly smaller than in the long run: 694 versus 6.058, respectively. Therefore, the anticipated savings, estimated are not realistic for decision makers with a short time horizon. The short-term savings amount to only 11% of the anticipated savings in the long run. Nevertheless, the combined treatment remains a cost-effective treatment. Analysing the budgetary constraints resulted in the finding that the substitution of the in-hospital treatment by the combined treatment has taken place without negative financial consequences for the hospital. Case 2: The ground bound mobile medical team--Economic arguments to implement the ground bound mobile medical team (MMT) are undecided. With respect to the budgetary constraints we find that the budget for the trauma centre is conditional upon the deployment of the ground bound MMT. Moreover, the cost of the ground bound MMT is a relatively small part of the budget for the trauma centre and therefore no hurdle to implement. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these findings we conclude that limitations in reallocating resources and adjusting budgets in health care may hamper the usefulness of economic evaluation for decision-making. Researching the extent of these limitations provides, together with the CEA, better information on which the decision whether a new technology should be implemented and what the expected welfare gains from such an implementation might be can be made. For this a set of checklists is developed.

Budgets↗

PubMed2005

Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. METHODS: The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. RESULTS: The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed2002

Predicting the cost of hospital stay for stroke patients: the use of diagnosis related groups.

In order to provide tailor-made care, governments are considering the implementation of output-pricing based on hospital case-mix measures, such as diagnosis related groups (DRG). The question is whether the current DRG classification system can provide a satisfactory prediction of the variance of costs in stroke patients and if not, in what way other variables may enhance this prediction. In this study, data from 731 stroke patients hospitalized at University Hospital Maastricht during 1996-1998 are used in the cost analysis. The DRG classification for this group uses information--in addition to the DRG classification operation or no operation--on the patient's age combined with discharge status. The results of regression analysis show that using DRGs, the variance explained in the costs amounts to 34%. Adding other variables to the DRGs, the variance explained increases to about 61%. Additional factors highly correlating with inpatient costs are the level of functioning after stroke, comorbidity, complications, and 'days of stay for non-medical reasons'. Costs decreased for stroke patients discharged during the latter part of the years studied, and if stroke patients happened to die during their hospital stay. The results do suggest that future implementation of output-pricing based on the DRG case-mix measures is feasible for stroke patients only if it is enhanced with information on complications and the level of functioning.

Aged↗