International lessons in new methods for grading and integrating cost effectiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines

Article English OPEN
Antioch, Kathryn M. ; Drummond, Michael F. ; Niessen, Louis W. ; Vondeling, Hindrik (2017)
  • Publisher: BioMed Central
  • Journal: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E, volume 15 (eissn: 1478-7547)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1186/s12962-017-0063-x, pmc: PMC5303215
  • Subject: O320: management of technological innovation and R&D | Health Policy | I1: health | Review | qy_4 | wa_30 | D61: cost benefit analysis | I180: Health-Government policy, Regulation, Public health | wa_530 | RA

Economic evidence is influential in health technology assessment world-wide. Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) can enable economists to include economic information on health care provision. Application of economic evidence in CPGs, and its integration into clinical practice and national decision making is hampered by objections from professions, paucity of economic evidence or lack of policy commitment. The use of state-of-art economic methodologies will improve this. Economic evidence can be graded by ‘checklists’ to establish the best evidence for decision making given methodological rigor. New economic evaluation checklists, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) and other decision criteria enable health economists to impact on decision making world-wide. We analyse the methodologies for integrating economic evidence into CPG agencies globally, including the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) in the USA, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian political reforms. The Guidelines and Economists Network International (GENI) Board members from Australia, UK, Canada and Denmark presented the findings at the conference of the International Health Economists Association (IHEA) and we report conclusions and developments since. The Consolidated Guidelines for the Reporting of Economic Evaluations (CHEERS) 24 item check list can be used by AHRQ, NHMRC, other CPG and health organisations, in conjunction with the Drummond ten-point check list and a questionnaire that scores that checklist for grading studies, when assessing economic evidence. Cost-effectiveness Analysis (CEA) thresholds, opportunity cost and willingness-to-pay (WTP) are crucial issues for decision rules in CEA generally, including end-of-life therapies. Limitations of inter-rater reliability in checklists can be addressed by including more than one assessor to reach a consensus, especially when impacting on treatment decisions. We identify priority areas to generate economic evidence for CPGs by NHMRC, AHRQ, and other agencies. The evidence may cover demand for care issues such as involved time, logistics, innovation price, price sensitivity, substitutes and complements, WTP, absenteeism and presentism. Supply issues may include economies of scale, efficiency changes, and return on investment. Involved equity and efficiency measures may include cost-of-illness, disease burden, quality-of-life, budget impact, cost-effective ratios, net benefits and disparities in access and outcomes. Priority setting remains essential and trade-off decisions between policy criteria can be based on MCDA, both in evidence based clinical medicine and in health planning. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-017-0063-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • References (62)
    62 references, page 1 of 7

    1. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). National Health Reform Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australian and State and Territory Governments. 2011. npa/health_reform/national-agreement.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    2. Antioch KM. Integrating Economic and Clinical Evidence, Guidelines and Equity into National Regulation and Financing: Reforms for the Australian Health Care Agreements (AHCA): 2009 and Beyond. Paper to Council of Australian Government (COAG), State and Federal stakeholders. Published by National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) and Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) with permission of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). 2008. nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/297-interim/%24FILE/298%20-%20Submission%20-%20%20Dr%20Kathryn%20Antioch.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    3. Antioch KM. Intergovernmental agreements: update on reforms on risk adjustment of health funding and evidence based medicine (EBM) Implementation. Paper to COAG; State and Federal stakeholders (Published by NHHRC and DOHA with permission of DPMC). 2009. interim/%24FILE/297%20-%20Submission%20-%20%20Dr%20Kathryn%20Antioch.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    4. Antioch KM. COAG: April 2010 update on reforms on activity based funding, risk adjustment and evidence based medicine (EBM) implementation'. Paper to COAG; State and Federal stakehoders for April 2010 COAG meeting, Canberra. (Submission published by Australian Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee). 2010a. See Submission 20 Accessed 15 May 2015.

    5. NHMRC. A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 1999. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    6. NHMRC. How to put the evidence into practice: implementation and dissemination strategies Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines. Canberra National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000a. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    7. NHMRC. How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of the scientific literature. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000b. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    8. NHMRC. How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2000c. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    9. NHMRC. How to compare the costs and benefits: evaluation of the economic evidence Handbook series on preparing clinical practice guidelines, Canberra National Health and Medical Research Council. 2001. Accessed 15 May 2015.

    10. Antioch KM, Jennings G, Botti M, Chapman R and Wulfsohn V. 'Integrating cost-eefctiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines in Australia for Acute Myocardial Infarction'. Eur J Health Eco. 2002;3:26-39. http://link. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark