PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Edward C F Wilson

Publications and source records attributed to Edward C F Wilson.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust.

BACKGROUND: In the English NHS, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are required to commission health services, to maximise the well-being of the population, subject to the available budget. There are numerous techniques employed to make decisions, some more rational and transparent than others. A weighted benefit score can be used to rank options but this does not take into account value for money from investments. METHODS: We developed a weighted benefit score framework for use in an English PCT which ranked options in order of 'cost-value' or 'cost per point of benefit'. Our method differs from existing techniques by explicitly combining cost and a composite weighted benefit score into the cost-value ratio. RESULTS: The technique proved readily workable, and was able to accommodate a wide variety of data and competing criteria. Participants felt able to assign scores to proposed services, and generate a ranked list, which provides a solid starting point for the PCT Board to discuss and make funding decisions. Limitations included potential for criteria to be neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive and the lack of an interval property in the benefit score limiting the usefulness of a cost-value ratio. CONCLUSION: A technical approach to decision making is insufficient for making prioritisation decisions, however our technique provides a very valuable, structured and informed starting point for PCT decision making.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost to the NHS resulting from multiple pregnancies arising from IVF treatment in the UK, and to compare those costs with the cost to the NHS due to singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF treatment. DESIGN: A modelling study using data from published literature and cost data from national sources in the public domain, calculating direct costs from the diagnosis of a clinical pregnancy until the end of the first year after birth. SETTING: Academic Unit of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine. POPULATION: Theoretic core modelling study using data from published literature. METHODS: The analysis was based on the total annual number of births resulting from an IVF treatment in the UK. Main outcome measures total direct costs to the NHS per IVF singleton, twin or triplet family. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of singleton, twin and triplet IVF pregnancies in the UK. RESULTS: Total direct costs to the NHS per IVF twin or triplet family (maternal + infant costs) are substantially higher than per IVF singleton family (singleton: pounds 3313; twin: pounds 9122; and triplet: pounds 32,354). Multiple pregnancies after IVF are associated with 56% of the direct cost of IVF pregnancies, although they represent less than 1/3 of the total annual number of maternities in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple pregnancies after IVF are associated with high direct costs to the NHS. Redirection of money saved by implementation of a mandatory 'two embryo transfer' policy into increased provision of IVF treatment could double the number of NHS-funded IVF treatment cycles at no extra cost. Further savings could be made if a selective 'single embryo transfer' policy were to be adopted.

Decision Trees↗
PubMed2006

Using economic analyses for local priority setting : the population cost-impact approach.

INTRODUCTION: Standard methods of economic analysis may not be suitable for local decision making that is specific to a particular population. BACKGROUND: We describe a new three-step methodology, termed 'population cost-impact analysis', which provides a population perspective to the costs and benefits of alternative interventions. The first two steps involve calculating the population impact and the costs of the proposed interventions relevant to local conditions. This involves the calculation of population impact measures (which have been previously described but are not currently used extensively) - measures of absolute risk and risk reduction, applied to a population denominator. In step three, preferences of policy-makers are obtained. This is in contrast to the QALY approach in which quality weights are obtained as a part of the measurement of benefit. METHODS: We applied the population cost-impact analysis method to a comparison of two interventions - increasing the use of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and smoking cessation - after myocardial infarction in a scaled-back notional local population of 100,000 people in England. Twenty-two public health professionals were asked via a questionnaire to rank the order in which they would implement four interventions. They were given information on both population cost impact and QALYs for each intervention. RESULTS: In a population of 100,000 people, moving from current to best practice for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and smoking cessation will prevent 11 and 4 deaths (or gain of 127 or 42 life-years), respectively. The cost per event prevented in the next year, or life-year gained, is less for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists than for smoking cessation. Public health professionals were found to be more inclined to rank alternative interventions according to the population cost impact than the QALY approach. DISCUSSION: The use of the population cost-impact approach allows information on the benefits of moving from current to best practice to be presented in terms of the benefits and costs to a particular population. The process for deciding between alternative interventions in a prioritisation exercise may differ according to the local context. We suggest that the valuation of the benefit is performed after the benefits have been quantified and that it takes into account local issues relevant to prioritisation. It would be an appropriate next step to experiment with, and formalise, this part of the population cost-impact analysis to provide a standardised approach for determining willingness to pay and provide a ranking of priorities. CONCLUSION: Our method adds a new dimension to economic analysis, the ability to identify costs and benefits of potential interventions to a defined population, which may be of considerable use for policy makers working at the local level.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2002

The cost to the United Kingdom National Health Service of managing erectile dysfunction: the impact of sildenafil and prescribing restrictions.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual direct cost of managing erectile dysfunction (ED) to the UK National Health Service (NHS) and to examine the impact of the introduction of sildenafil in 1998 and Schedule 11 restrictions in 1999. DESIGN: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach was used. The period 1997 to 2000 was covered. The numbers of ED prescriptions, prosthesis implantations and general practitioner (GP) consultations were retrieved retrospectively from UK resource utilisation databases. The number of specialist consultations and psychosexual therapy sessions were estimated from NHS clinic data. National resource unit costs were applied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2000 the number of men presenting with ED increased from 79,800 to 257,984. The cost to the NHS increased from pounds sterling 29.4 million to pounds sterling 73.8 million (2000 estimates). The cost per patient fell from pounds sterling 368 to pounds sterling 286. In 1997, most NHS costs came from psychosexual therapy (30.7%), specialist consultations (20.2%) and intracavernosal injections (26.6%). By 2000, NHS costs came primarily from specialist consultations (32.0%), sildenafil prescriptions (26.2%), psychosexual therapy (13.6%) and GP consultations (12.0%). The annual cost was most sensitive to the number of drug prescriptions and specialist consultations. CONCLUSIONS: The increased NHS cost of managing ED was due mainly to a three-fold increase in the number of men presenting to GPs, substantial numbers of whom were then referred for specialist consultations under Schedule 11 restrictions. This naturally resulted in the increased use of all resources including sildenafil. The cost effectiveness of transferring prescribing responsibility in cases of severe distress from specialists to GPs in primary care remains to be determined.

Cost of Illness↗