Biomedical subjects

Peter J Neumann

Publications and source records attributed to Peter J Neumann.

44 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses.

OBJECTIVE: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommended the compilation of a catalog of health state utility weights for use in cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and has given methodological recommendations. This study presents an update, through 2001, to our current registry of utility weights (available at http://www.tufts-nemc.org/cearegistry; previously at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry), and documents recent changes in methods used for utility weight elicitation. METHODS: We searched the English-language medical literature for original CUAs reporting outcomes as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Two trained readers independently audited each article, abstracting data on the health state descriptions, corresponding utility weights, methods of elicitation, and sources of the estimates. The utility elicitation methods from 1998 to 2001 were compared with the methods used to obtain utilities before 1998. RESULTS: We identified 306 CUAs published after 1998, reporting 1210 separate health-related utility estimates, bringing the total in our catalog to 2159 weights. Most frequently, health states pertained to the circulatory system and oncology. Methods varied substantially: 36% of authors used direct elicitation (standard gamble, time trade-off or rating scale), 23% used generic health status instruments (EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index, etc.), and 25% estimated weights based on clinical judgment. Community preferences were used in 27% of the values. Compared with pre-1998, utilities published from 1998 to 2001 were more likely to be elicited using a generic instrument, more likely elicited from community samples, and less likely derived from expert opinion, with no formally employed methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Increasingly, analysts conducting CUAs are using generic, preference-weighted instruments, and relying on community-based preferences. Our catalog of utility weights provides a useful reference tool for producers and consumers of CUAs, but also highlights the continued need for improvement in methods and transparency.

Australia↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research?

PURPOSE: We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. DATA AND METHODS: We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorities. RESULTS: CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although many peer-reviewed journals have adopted standards for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), guidelines do not exist for the accompanying abstracts. Abstracts are the most easily accessed portion of journal articles, yet little is known about their quality. The authors examined the extent to which abstracts of published CEAs include key data elements (intervention, comparator, target population, study perspective) and assessed the effect of journal characteristics on reporting quality. METHODS: Systematic review of the English-language medical literature from 1998 through 2001. The authors searched MEDLINE for original CEAs reported in costs per quality-adjusted life years(i.e., cost-utility analyses). Two independent readers abstracted data elements and met to resolve discrepancies. RESULTS: Among the 303 abstracts reviewed, a clear description of the intervention was present in 94%, comparator in 71%, target population in 85%, and study perspective in 28%. All 4 data elements were reported in 20% of abstracts, 3 elements in 49%, 2 in 22%, and 0 or 1 in 9%. In journals with CEA-specific abstract reporting requirements, structured abstract requirements, or impact factors>or=10, significantly more data were included in abstracts than in journals without these features (P<0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts of published CEAs frequently omit data elements critical to proper study interpretation. An explicit core set of reporting standards is needed, based on the standards by the US Public Health Service's Panel on Cost-Effectiveness for reporting of CEAs, but specific to the accompanying abstracts.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Evidence-based and value-based formulary guidelines.

Health plans and hospitals have long used drug formularies, but the processes by which formulary committees made decisions have typically lacked transparency and scientific rigor. A growing number of organizations have begun implementing formulary guidelines issued by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP). These guidelines call for health plans to request formally that drug companies present a standardized "dossier" that contains detailed information not only on the drug's effectiveness and safety but also on its economic value relative to alternative therapies. This paper describes the guidelines, reviews progress to date, and analyzes several critical issues for the future.

Decision Making, Organizational↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Medicare's national coverage decisions, 1999-2003: quality of evidence and review times.

In 1998 Medicare amended its procedures for making national coverage decisions for new technologies in an attempt to make the process more transparent and evidence based. We examined the quality of evidence for sixty-nine technologies reviewed by Medicare since then. Determinations by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have generally been consistent with the strength of evidence. Good clinical evidence from rigorous studies is usually lacking for the technologies Medicare considers, although in most cases the CMS covers with conditions if there is at least fair evidence that benefits outweigh harms. Decisions referred to the external Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC) have averaged eight months longer than non-MCAC decisions.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

PubMedDate not supplied

When is evidence sufficient?

Traditional conceptualizations of evidence-based medicine rely heavily on randomized controlled trials. Although initiatives to broaden definitions of evidence have been advanced, they generally have not tied evidentiary criteria formally and quantitatively to the benefits and costs involved in a decision to adopt or reject an intervention. Decision analysis provides a framework for combining information to inform the adoption decision in this manner. Value-of-information analysis, a related methodology, helps to determine whether it is worthwhile to collect additional information as well as the type of research that would be most helpful.

Decision Making, Organizational↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Biotechnology and Medicare's new technology policy: lessons from three case studies.

Biotechnology has figured prominently in recent Medicare coverage and payment policies. Biotech treatments push policy boundaries for several reasons: They attract strong patient demand; they often treat rare or life-threatening diseases; they may have uncertain evidence of health benefits; and they are often costly. This paper considers case studies of Medicare coverage for off-label uses of biotech cancer drugs and payments for anemia biopharmaceuticals. The cases suggest Medicare's ongoing challenge to balance access considerations, the role and strength of evidence, and cost consequences of new treatments.

Anemia↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the increasing use of health economic studies and practical implications of evaluating their quality utilizing the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. METHODS: We first reviewed secondary references to examine ways in which health economic analyses are used in different health care settings, the manner in which these data are appraised and evaluated, and their relevance and value in decision making. The QHES, a new instrument designed to support fast, accurate initial assessments of study quality, was then introduced and validated. A case study was performed using the QHES to score the quality of 30 cost-effectiveness studies in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) published since 1985. Areas where additional research could guide efforts to identify and enhance the use of higher-quality cost-effectiveness studies were suggested. RESULTS: Results from the published validation study of the QHES demonstrated the validity of this new instrument. The resulting QHES scores in the case study of GERD papers ranged from 43 to 91 with a mean of 63.6 (SD=14.7). Approximately 27% of the studies rated had scores less than 50, and 27% had scores above or equal to 75. All 30 studies made conclusions and recommendations and justified them based on their study results. Most studies used appropriate cost and health outcome measures. Very few studies stated the perspective of their analysis and reasons for its selection. The majority of the studies did not perform incremental analysis. CONCLUSION: An examination of the QHES validation study and the case study in GERD suggests that there is a rationale and potential utility to use a quality scoring system for cost-effectiveness studies. The QHES may play an important role in discriminating higher-quality cost-effectiveness information to enhance decision making. The QHES can also serve as a guideline for conducting and reporting future cost-effectiveness studies, as an aid in the editorial process, and for stratification in systematic reviews. Complex decisions regarding resource allocation rarely rely solely on economic considerations but do increasingly use health economic analyses. To the extent that such analyses are used, the QHES may help ensure that higher-quality analyses receive more analytic attention and greater weight in the decision-making process.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗