-
Journal of the National Cancer... Jul 2022Health economics research, defined as research that evaluates how patients, health-care providers, and governments make health-care decisions using economic theory,...
Health economics research, defined as research that evaluates how patients, health-care providers, and governments make health-care decisions using economic theory, models, and empirical techniques, requires broad domains of knowledge that are not fully encompassed by a single discipline. Collaboration between disciplines provides different perspectives on problems, creates more comprehensive research questions, allows for more complex understanding of multifaceted determinants and processes, and thus, provides more realistic recommendations to address difficult questions of health economics. Realizing the importance of collaboration, the National Cancer Institute virtual conference on the Future of Cancer Health Economics included an interactive panel exploring how to foster effective collaborations in cancer health economics research. This manuscript summarizes the panel and participants' discussion regarding the value, barriers, and potential facilitators to transdisciplinary collaboration within health economics research.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Economics, Medical; Humans; Neoplasms; Research
PubMed: 35788381
DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgac001 -
Social Science & Medicine (1982) May 2015
Topics: Biomedical Research; Economics, Medical; Geography, Medical; Health; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Social Change
PubMed: 25754540
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.030 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2021This study was aimed to find and appraise the available published pharmacoeconomic research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), to identify related issues and make...
This study was aimed to find and appraise the available published pharmacoeconomic research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), to identify related issues and make suggestions for improvement in future research. After developing a search strategy and establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM were sourced from seven Chinese and English databases from inception to April 2020. Basic information about the studies and key pharmacoeconomic items of each study were extracted. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist for authors and peer reviewers, focusing on factors such as study design, research time horizon, sample size, perspective, and evaluation methods. A total of 431 published pharmacoeconomic articles with 434 studies on topics including cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-utility, or combination analyses were identified and included in this review. Of these, 424 were published in Chinese and 7 in English. These studies conducted economic evaluations of 264 Chinese patent medicines and 70 types of TCM prescriptions for 143 diseases, including those of the central nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gynecologyical, and other systems. The studied TCMs included blood-activating agents (such as Xuesaitong tablet, Fufant Danshen tablet, and Danhong Injection), blood circulation promoting agents (such as Shuxuetong injection, Rupixiao tablet, and Fufang Danshen injection), and other therapeutic agents. The overall quality score of the studies was 0.62 (range 0.38 to 0.85). The mean quality score of studies in English was 0.72, which was higher than that of studies in Chinese with 0.62. The quality of pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM was relatively, generally low. Major concerns included study design, inappropriate pharmacoeconomic evaluation, insufficient sample size, or non-scientific assessment. Enhanced methodological training and cooperation, the development of a targeted pharmacoeconomic evaluation guideline, and proposal of a reasonable health outcome index are warranted to improve quality of future studies.
Topics: China; Economics, Medical; Economics, Pharmaceutical; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Research Design
PubMed: 34414159
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.706366 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2019
Topics: Caregivers; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Family; Humans
PubMed: 30915632
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00794-5 -
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &... Oct 2019: Health-care systems in Asian countries are diverse. The economic evaluation provides information on how to make efficient use of the resources available to obtain the... (Review)
Review
: Health-care systems in Asian countries are diverse. The economic evaluation provides information on how to make efficient use of the resources available to obtain the maximum benefits. In Asia, diseases such as cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), diabetes mellitus (DM), tuberculosis (TB) and epilepsy generate a heavy economic burden. The objective of this article is to provide a review of the economic burden of health to patients in Asian countries. : All data were collected from already published research article and review papers. The databases searched were Science Direct, PubMed, MEDLINE and Google scholar. We found a total of 4456 articles on health economics. After reviewing the title, only 876 relevant articles were considered. Only 92 (n = 92) articles were considered on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. : Available data give evidence that diseases are linked to the low socio-economic status of the Asian population. The cost per capita is high in Asian countries due to insufficient health-care facilities. The cost per capita in Asian countries ranges from $23 (Pakistan) to $1775 (Taiwan). The per capita cost of Malaysia, China, Singapore, and Thailand is $27 $83, $75, and $27, respectively.
Topics: Asia; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Delivery of Health Care; Economics, Medical; Health Care Costs; Humans; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 31401898
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2019.1650643 -
Journal of the American College of... Jun 2018To investigate the ability to successfully develop and institute a comprehensive health care economics skills curriculum in radiology residency training utilizing...
PURPOSE
To investigate the ability to successfully develop and institute a comprehensive health care economics skills curriculum in radiology residency training utilizing didactic lectures, case scenario exercises, and residency miniretreats.
METHODS
A comprehensive health care economics skills curriculum was developed to significantly expand upon the basic ACGME radiology residency milestone System-Based Practice, SBP2: Health Care Economics requirements and include additional education in business and contract negotiation, radiology sales and marketing, and governmental and private payers' influence in the practice of radiology.
RESULTS
A health care economics curriculum for radiology residents incorporating three phases of education was developed and implemented. Phase 1 of the curriculum constituted basic education through didactic lectures covering System-Based Practice, SBP2: Health Care Economics requirements. Phase 2 constituted further, more advanced didactic lectures on radiology sales and marketing techniques as well as government and private insurers' role in the business of radiology. Phase 3 applied knowledge attained from the initial two phases to real-life case scenario exercises and radiology department business miniretreats with the remainder of the radiology department.
CONCLUSION
A health care economics skills curriculum in radiology residency is attainable and essential in the education of future radiology residents in the ever-changing climate of health care economics. Institution of more comprehensive programs will likely maximize the long-term success of radiology as a specialty by identifying and educating future leaders in the field of radiology.
Topics: Comprehensive Health Care; Curriculum; Economics, Medical; Education, Medical, Graduate; Humans; Internship and Residency; Radiology
PubMed: 29728326
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.02.022 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2020Methods for measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation and health technology assessment in adult populations are well developed. In contrast, methods... (Review)
Review
Methods for measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation and health technology assessment in adult populations are well developed. In contrast, methods for assessing interventions for child and adolescent populations lack detailed guidelines, particularly regarding the valuation of health and quality of life in these age groups. This paper critically examines the methodological considerations involved in the valuation of child- and adolescent-specific health-related quality of life by existing preference-based measures. It also describes the methodological choices made in the valuation of existing generic preference-based measures developed with and/or applied in child and adolescent populations: AHUM, AQoL-6D, CHU9D, EQ-5D-Y, HUI2, HUI3, QWB, 16D and 17D. The approaches used to value existing child- and adolescent-specific generic preference-based measures vary considerably. While the choice of whose preferences and which perspective to use is a matter of normative debate and ultimately for decision by reimbursement agencies and policy makers, greater research around these issues would be informative and would enrich these discussions. Research can also inform the other methodological choices required in the valuation of child and adolescent health states. Gaps in research evidence are identified around the impact of the child described in health state valuation exercises undertaken by adults, including the possibility of informed preferences; the appropriateness and acceptability of valuation tasks for adolescents, in particular tasks involving the state 'dead'; anchoring of adolescent preferences; and the generation and use of combined adult and adolescent preferences.
Topics: Adolescent; Biomedical Technology; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Value of Life
PubMed: 31903522
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00873-7 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Sep 2020The need for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) has expanded globally, fueling demand for professionals trained in the discipline. By leveraging the expertise...
The need for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) has expanded globally, fueling demand for professionals trained in the discipline. By leveraging the expertise and perspectives of its members, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) established a set of competencies for HEOR professionals. The resulting 41 competencies were organized into 13 topic domains that collectively comprise the ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework. In this article, we explain the collaborative process used by the ISPOR Institutional Council and Faculty Advisor Council to identify and validate the framework. This process entailed expertise from the council members combined with natural language processing to examine competencies included in ISPOR Career Center HEOR job postings, qualitative input from a focused Institutional Council-Faculty Advisor Council workgroup, and quantitative input from 3 surveys of mutually exclusive member groups: a general member survey to assess importance and relevance of each competency, a faculty member survey to assess the extent to which HEOR graduate degree programs cover each of the competencies, and a student member survey to assess exposure to each of the competencies. Organization of the competencies into topic domains was achieved by engaging the Education Council, which applied a taxonomy consistent with ISPOR's educational programming. The resulting ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework has the important potential of serving as a tool to guide academic curricula, fellowships, and continuing education programs, and assessment of job candidates. As the HEOR field advances, so do the job types and the breadth of topics in which professionals must demonstrate competence. Future work will entail revisiting the competencies to ensure their currency and comprehensiveness, and tailoring the framework according to major specialty areas.
Topics: Economics, Medical; Economics, Pharmaceutical; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32940228
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1834 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Sep 2022
Topics: Fees, Medical; Humans; Patient Care; Sex Offenses; Uncompensated Care
PubMed: 36103420
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2207644 -
BMC Health Services Research Jul 2021Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE)...
BACKGROUND
Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.
METHODS
This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.
RESULTS
The survey (nā=ā55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (nā=ā5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.
CONCLUSIONS
HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.
Topics: Economics, Medical; Evidence-Based Medicine; Federal Government; Humans; National Health Programs; South Africa
PubMed: 34304743
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06747-z