Costing/economic Tools

Developing a Resource Strategy for your National Cancer Control Plan: Cost-effectiveness and value

Overview

The role of cost-effectiveness studies in planning

Country specific data considerations

What can be learned from other countries?

• Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination
•  Cost-effectiveness of cervical screening
• Impact of combined intervention

Facilitator: Karen Canfell, Director, Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Adjunct Professor, School of public Health, University of Sydney, Conjoint Professor, Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Australia

In order to watch the recordings you will need the WebEx player which can be dowloaded here: https://www.webex.com/play-webex-recording.html  Click on the link and scroll down to dowload the player for .ARF files. 

Introduction

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation is an analytical tool used with increasing frequency to assist decision making in the financing and management of pharmaceutical products in the health care system or national health insurance programs of an individual country. Pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines can be used as a standard for preparation of studies to be included in application for reimbursement, a guide for designing and conducting a study, or a template for evaluating the economic study reports.

This section of the ISPOR website, “Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around the World” provides the following:

A comparative table of 33 guideline key features. The key features of the guidelines are: 1) type, 2) title and year of the document, 3) affiliation of authors, 4) main policy objective, 5) standard reporting format included, 6) disclosure of funding/ author’s interests, 7) target audience, 8) perspective, 9) indication, 10) target population, 11) subgroup analysis, 12) choice of comparator, 13) time horizon, 14) assumptions required, 15) preferred analytical technique, 16) costs to be included, 17) source of costs, 18) modeling, 19) systematic review of evidences, 20) preference for effectiveness over efficacy, 21) preferred outcome measure, 22) preferred method to derive utility, 23) Equity issue stated, 24) discounting costs, 25) discounting outcomes, 26) sensitivity analysis- parameters and range, 27) sensitivity analysis- methods, 28) presenting results, 29) incremental analysis, 30) total C/E, 31) portability of results (generalizability), 32) financial impact analysis, and 33) Mandatory or recommended or voluntary

In September 2015, United Nations member states will adopt a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a 2030 end date. A landmark report, called Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare and economic development makes the case that sustainable development will be hard to achieve unless the international health and development community addresses the enormous global burden of surgical conditions. The report, by The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, an international group of 25 health experts, shows that surgical conditions impede economic development in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to surgical care is poor. Without urgent investment in the scale-up of surgical services, these conditions will be a major barrier to national income growth, economic productivity, and improved human welfare. Surgical scale-up will require mobilization of both domestic and international finance and resources in most LMICs. However the estimated costs are small relative to the economic and welfare returns on investment countries will experience. These findings provide a compelling rationale for national governments in LMICs, as well as donor agencies, to increase both investments in surgical services and in the national health systems required to support their delivery.

*Kalipso Chalkidou, Robert Marten, Derek Cutler, Tony Culyer,

Richard Smith, Yot Teerawattananon, Francoise Cluzeau,

Ryan Li, Richard Sullivan, Yanzhong Huang, Victoria Fan,

Amanda Glassman, Yu Dezhi, Martha Gyansa-Lutterodt,

Sam McPherson, Carlos Gadelha, Thiagarajan Sundararaman,

Neil Squires, Nils Daulaire, Rajeev Sadanandan, Konuma Shiro,

Alexandre Lemgruber

NICE, London SW1A 2BU, UK (KC, DC, FC, RL); Rockefeller

Foundation, New York, USA (RM); Department of Economics and

Related Studies, University of York, York, UK (TC); Institute of

Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Toronto University,

Canada (TC); Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of

Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (RSm); Health

Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Department of

Health, Ministry of Public Health, Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand

(YT); King’s College London, London, UK (RSu); Council on Foreign

Relations, New York, NY, USA (YH); Centre for Global

Development, Washington, DC, USA (VF, AG); Ministry of Health

and Local Health Bureau, Anhui Province, China (YD); Ministry of

Health, Accra, Ghana (MG-L); ITAD, Hove, UK (SM); Ministry of

Health, Brasília, Brazil (CG); Resource Centre, National Rural Health

Mission, New Delhi, India (TS); Department for International

Development, London, UK (NS); Department of Health and Human

Services, Washington, DC, USA (ND); Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India (RSa); Ministry of

Foreign Aff airs, Tokyo, Japan (KS); and Pan American Health

Organization, Washington, DC, USA (AL)

[email protected]