Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016
-
Upload
evadew1 -
Category
Presentations & Public Speaking
-
view
356 -
download
2
Transcript of Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016
![Page 1: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Technology Assessment, Outcomes Research and
Economic Analyses
Deborah A. Baumgarten, M.D., M.P.H.Emory University HospitalDepartment of Radiology
![Page 2: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Rationale• Cost of medical care increasing faster than
cost of living• 5.6% of GDP in 1965; 17.6% 2012; 19.8% 2020• $27.5 B 1960; $2.71 T 2011; $4.64 T 2020 • $8649 per person in 2011; $13,709 2020
• US spends more than 33 others in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development• But fewer MDs, hospital beds per capita
![Page 3: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
OECD spending on health care
OECD Health Data 2012
![Page 4: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Health care expenditure as % GDP
OECD Health Data 2012
![Page 5: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18 US (17.1%)FR (11.6%)SWE (11.5%)GER (11.2%)NETH (11.1%)SWIZ (11.1%)DEN (11.1%)NZ (11.0%)CAN (10.7%)JAP (10.2%)NOR (9.4%)AUS (9.4%)*UK (8.8%)
Health Care Spending as Percentage of GDP, 1980–2013
Percent
OECD Health Data 2015
![Page 6: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Rationale• Workers now paying at least $1,094 more in
premiums annually for coverage than in 2000• Still waiting to see what ACA does…
• Despite expenditures, can we document significant improvement in health status?• Life expectancy• Perinatal mortality
![Page 7: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Life expectancy
![Page 8: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Infant mortality rate
![Page 9: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Our poor health• Life expectancy 78.8 vs. 81.2 (2013)• Infant mortality 6.1/1000 vs. 3.5 (2011)• 68% adults over 65 had at least 2 chronic
conditions (33% UK, 56% Canada; 2014)• Obesity rate 35.3% (3.7% Japan, 30.6% NZ; 2014)• Smokers 13.7 (12.8 Australia, 24.1 France; 2013)
![Page 10: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
US does more of…United States Rank compared
with OECD countries
OECD median
MRI units 35.5 per 1,000,000 2nd (Japan 1st) 11.4 per 1,000,000
MRI exams 106.9 per 1000 50.6 per 1000
CT units 43.5 per 1,000,000 3rd (Japan 1st, Australia 2nd)
17.6 per 1,000,000
CT exams 240 per 1000 136 per 1000
Tonsillectomy 254.4 per 100,000 1st 130 per 100,000
Coronary bypass 79.0 per 100,000 3rd 47.3 per 100,000
Knee replacement 226 per 100,000 1st 121.6 per 100,000
Caesarian section 32.9 per 1000 live births
6th 26.1 per 1000 live births
OECD Health Data 2012 and 2015
![Page 11: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Why?• Current payment structure means MDs get
paid more to do more interventions• ACA has not had effect yet…
• Fear of litigation• Patients ask for more—and usually do not
pay out of pocket (insurance covers)
![Page 12: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Why?• MDs in US paid more but seen less
• 4 visits/year (OECD average 6.5 visits/year)• US uses more pharmaceuticals
• 2.2 drugs per adult (1.2 Netherlands)• Cost more (US=100; Australia=49; Germany=95)
• Procedures cost more • Bypass 75,345 vs. 42,130 in Australia• Appendectomy 13, 910 vs 4,995 Netherlands
![Page 13: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Technology Assessment
![Page 14: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Bit of background• Technology assessment hierarchy• Based on efficacy (benefit under ideal
circumstances)• Differs from effectiveness (benefit in real
world)• Differs from efficiency (sufficient value?
adds economic component)
Fryback D, Thornbury J. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Dec Making 1991;11:88-94
![Page 15: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Technology assessment hierarchy• Technical efficacy• Diagnostic accuracy• Diagnostic impact• Therapeutic impact• Patient outcomes• Societal outcomes
Fryback D, Thornbury J. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Dec Making 1991;11:88-94
If technology fails at lower level,
no point going further
![Page 16: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Technical efficacy• Ability of technology to produce image• Measured by image characteristics
• Signal to noise, resolution of line pairs, etc.• Developmental: prototype and phantom,
safety• Exploratory: possible use, wide range of
patients, situations, conditions
![Page 17: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Technical efficacy• Ideas of what falls here?
![Page 18: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Diagnostic accuracy• Distinguish between disease, non-disease,
or normal, abnormal• Establish diagnosis if symptoms• Screen in asymptomatic patient
• Quantify severity or extent of disease• Prognostic information (staging)• Monitor therapy
• Need gold standard; measure of truth
![Page 19: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Diagnostic accuracy• Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative
predictive values • 2 x 2 table to display comparison to gold
standard or reference• Area under ROC curve• Most radiology research falls into this
category
![Page 20: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Diagnostic accuracy• Ideas?
![Page 21: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Diagnostic impact
• Which imaging tests have greatest impact on clinical decisions?
• Before test need to know• Differential diagnosis• Degree of certainty of diagnoses• Probability of each consideration
• Reassess after test performed• Best done prospectively
![Page 22: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Diagnostic impact• Ideas?
![Page 23: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Therapeutic impact• Which imaging tests have greatest impact on
therapeutic decisions?• Percent procedures avoided due to imaging• Percent imaging changed plan
• Retrospectively inferred from records• Prospectively assessed using clinicians’
stated plans
![Page 24: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Therapeutic impact• Ideas?
![Page 25: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Patient outcomes• Traditionally, morbidity or mortality• Change in quality adjusted life years (QALY)• Can be difficult to prove link as imaging
study several steps removed from patient outcome
![Page 26: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Societal outcomes• Cost analyses from societal perspective• Usually reported as cost per QALY• Must be below some threshold to be
accepted (? $50,000/QALY)• Example, head CT to screen for brain mets
in lung cancer patients or only if symptomatic?• $70,000/QALY deemed too high to adopt
![Page 27: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Outcomes research
![Page 28: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Outcomes research—goals• Use imaging wisely
• Avoid over-diagnosis and over-treatment• Risks of treatment in early or mild disease
may outweigh benefits• Data that will permit maintenance of quality
at reduced cost• Increasingly important• Radiology needs to prove worth
![Page 29: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Outcomes research—getting started• Choose technology to be evaluated• Define specific clinical indication• Define target population• Choose alternative techniques for
comparison (may include no imaging)• Define outcomes affected by technology
![Page 30: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Randomized controlled trial• Gold standard of outcomes research• Patients assigned to different groups based
on imaging (or no imaging) to be performed • Measure appropriate outcomes• Confounders and biases accounted for in
design
![Page 31: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
RCT—limitations• Cost• Size of population
• Power calculation• Estimate expected differences
• Time to complete• Technology obsolete by time outcomes
assessed?• Technology as moving target
• Results may only apply to narrow spectrum of patients; issue of generalizeability
![Page 32: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
RCT—unnecessary when?• Anecdotal evidence of benefit dramatic;
observational studies suffice• Example: head CT in trauma
• New technology:• Has same or fewer side effects• Has same or better accuracy• Is less expensive
![Page 33: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
RCT—necessary when?• Really don’t know answer• New technology:
• More expensive• May result in more morbidity• Very controversial
![Page 34: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
ACRIN—NLST• National Lung cancer Screening Trial• 25,000 patients randomized; low dose CT vs. CXR• Baseline, years 1 and 2• Q6 month health status and medical intervention
questionnaire• Very detailed description of what constitutes
positive screen and what to do• Outcomes
• Primary: Lung cancer specific mortality• Secondary: huge list
![Page 35: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
ACRIN—NLST• Low dose CT more sensitive than
radiography• Two annual incidence screenings with low-
dose CT resulted in • Decrease number of advanced-stage
cancers• Increase number of early-stage lung
cancers
NEJM 2013;369:920-921
![Page 36: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology:
![Page 37: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT
![Page 38: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication:
![Page 39: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication: RLQ pain, fever, etc.• Population:
![Page 40: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication: RLQ pain, fever, etc.• Population: patients presenting to ER• Alternative:
![Page 41: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication: RLQ pain, fever, etc.• Population: patients presenting to ER• Alternative: best clinical judgment plus lab• Outcomes:
![Page 42: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication: RLQ pain, fever, etc.• Population: patients presenting to ER• Alternative: best clinical judgment plus lab• Outcomes: morbidity, mortality, perforation rate,
length of hospital stay, surgery rate, % normal appendices removed, cost to hospital, etc.
![Page 43: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Example to work through• CT for appendicitis: improve outcomes?• Technology: MDCT (?oral, ?IV, ?rectal)• Indication: RLQ pain, fever, etc.• Population: patients presenting to ER• Alternative: best clinical judgment plus lab• Outcomes: morbidity, mortality, perforation rate,
length of hospital stay, surgery rate, % normal appendices removed, cost to hospital, etc.
• Is this feasible?
![Page 44: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
What if RCT not feasible?• Modeling: Use of decision analysis software• Need information from other studies
• Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity• Course of disease, natural history• Effectiveness of therapy• Patient utilities and costs
• Meta-analyses for combining results of studies
![Page 45: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Modeling• Assumptions about test parameters
(sensitivity, specificity) based on literature • Then vary assumptions
• Assumptions about frequency of outcomes based on personal experience or literature (mortality and morbidity rates, etc.)• Allows variation of these
![Page 46: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Modeling—literature exampleCervical spine screening with CT vs. plain films
Blackmore CC et al. Radiology 1999;212:117-125
![Page 47: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
CT in appendicitis example• Retrospective study of 651 patients treated before
use of CT for appendicitis (1992-1995)• 52% went to surgery; 24% for observation then
surgery; 24% observation to discharge• Initial surgical group, 81% appendicitis• Observation to surgery group, 80% appendicitis• Observation to D/C group, assumed no
appendicitis (no returns to their hospital)
Rhea JT et al. AJR 1997;169:113-118
![Page 48: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
CT in appendicitis example• Apply sensitivity and specificity of CT from
literature to 100 theoretical patients• Use morbidity, mortality, perforation, correct
diagnosis rates from study of 651 patients• Model impact of CT on outcomes
• Decrease in nontherapeutic surgery (13 patients), observation days (1 day less on average), perforation rate, etc.
• Alternative diagnoses also confirmed
Rhea JT et al. AJR 1997;169:113-118
![Page 49: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Intermediate outcomes
• Choose levels lower in hierarchy• Diagnostic impact
• Change in diagnostic possibilities and confidence
• Before and after test ask referring MD:• Differential diagnosis• % certainty for each diagnosis• Degree of satisfaction with test
![Page 50: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Intermediate outcomes• Seattle Low Back Pain Imaging Project (SLIP)• RCT of plain films vs. MR as initial imaging• Diagnostic impact
• 15% new diagnosis with plain film• 30% for MRI (spinal stenosis, HNP, etc)
• Change in probability for most likely diagnosis for HNP (p<.002)
Jarvik JG et al. Radiology 1997;204:447-454
![Page 51: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Intermediate outcomes• Therapeutic impact
• Before test, ask MD for treatment plan• Observe if plan changes after test
• If temporally related, infer causal relationship between test and plan change
• SLIP: 38% avoided additional test if plain film first, 64% if MRI first (p<.001)
![Page 52: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Intermediate outcomes• Advantages
• Cheaper and easier than full RCT (RCT may show intermediate outcomes if assessed as in SLIP)
• No one denied potentially good test• Works well for “add-on tests”
• Tests that would not necessarily replace existing work-up
![Page 53: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Intermediate outcomes• Disadvantages
• Stated plans do not necessarily equal clinical action• If treatment invasive, difficult, expensive
or risky, easier to hypothetically choose• RCT still better for “replacement test”
![Page 54: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Patient outcomes• Reduced mortality• Reduced morbidity
• Decrease complications from other tests• Avoid invasive procedures• Faster return to normal (or pretest) state
![Page 55: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Patient outcomes• Quality of life: ability to undertake
rewarding and enjoyable activities• How person feels, functions
• Quality adjusted life years (QALYs)• Patient satisfaction, reassurance• Physiologic marker improvement• Improved function
![Page 56: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Functional status• General and specific measures • SF-36 (Short Form 36)
• 36 questions, 8 domains• General health, pain, physical functioning,
social functioning, mental health, etc.• Roland score (back pain specific index)• Sciatic frequency index
![Page 57: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SLIP follow-up• RCT ultimately enrolled 380 patients• Roland score at 12 months did not differ between 2
groups (8.75 plain film vs. 9.34 MRI, p = .53)• p >.75 for all domains of SF-36• Patient reassurance measure
• 1 month p=.09• 3 month p=.08• 12 month p=.002 (58% plain film vs. 74% MRI)• Increased reassurance with MRI over time
• 10 in MRI vs. 4 in plain film had surgery (p =.09)
Jarvik JG et al. JAMA 2003;289:2810-2818
![Page 58: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Outcomes research—limitations• Tenuous link between test and patient outcome
• Test usually steps removed from outcome• Best situation: proven link between therapy
and outcome link diagnosis to therapy to outcome
• Example: detection of cerebral aneurysms with MRA treatment decreases morbidity and mortality link MRA to reduced morbidity/mortality
![Page 59: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Outcomes research—limitations• If no proven impact on outcome, may be:
• Diagnostic test (inaccurate, insensitive)• Referring clinician (inappropriate use of
info; info does not reach)• Therapy (ineffective or unavailable)• Patient (lack of compliance)• System (lack of patient access)
![Page 60: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Alternative outcome• Therapeutic value of diagnostic test• Diagnostic test can have direct impact on
quality of life• Reassurance important to patients and
referring clinicians• If consider only positive tests fail to consider
that negative test has value
![Page 61: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Alternative outcome• Example: nonspecific chest pain• 176 patients randomized to receive no
studies or EKG and CPK level• Test group had less short term disability
(20% versus 46%; P=.001)• Use of diagnostic test independent predictor
of recovery in logistic regression• Test group felt care “better than usual”
Sox HC, et al. Ann Intern Med 1981;95:680-5
![Page 62: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Economic Analyses
![Page 63: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Economic evaluations• Must establish viewpoint of analysis• Society, insurer, provider, patient• All have different inputs and outcomes;
different costs to consider• Example: patient may value increased
quality of life at any cost while HMO may value decreasing overhead costs
![Page 64: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Costs
• Value of resources • Charges as estimate• Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement as
estimate• Micro-costing techniques—all resources
identified and quantified• Consider cost of missed abnormalities and
superfluous work-up of false positives
![Page 65: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Costs—examples• Medical
• Diagnostic test and interpretation• Nursing care
• Nonmedical• Time (travel, tests and treatment)• Travel• Support with daily activities• Lost productivity
![Page 66: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Types of economic analyses• Cost identification or cost minimization
• Compares alternative health care strategies assumed equally effective
![Page 67: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Cost identification—example• CT vs. US plus plain film after ESWL• 25 patients underwent all 3• Assumed equal accuracy• Exams timed; direct technical costs calculated
using procedural-based accounting system• CT 15.3 minutes; US + plain film 37.2 minutes• CT $36.86; US + plain film $57.60• Sensitivity analysis on time; within reasonable
range CT always cost less
Remer EM et al. Radiology 1997;204:33-37
![Page 68: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Types of economic analyses• Cost benefit
• Costs and benefits assigned dollar values• Comparison of different technologies• Limited use in medicine due to difficulty
assigning monetary values to health states• Cost effectiveness leaves outcomes in
natural, objective units• # lives saved, # cancers detected, etc.
![Page 69: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
CEA—example• What gain from sixth stool guaiac?• Progression from fifth to sixth stool guaiac
costs $47 million/cancer detected• Can use intermediate outcomes (length of
stay, readmission rates, number of unnecessary surgeries prevented)
Neuhauser D, Lewicki AM. N Engl J Med 1975; 293
![Page 70: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Cost utility analysis• Similar to CEA but uses subjective outcomes that
explicitly incorporate patient preferences• QALY: basic outcome measure• Year of life with significant morbidity less desirable
than year with excellent health• Full health equals 1• Death equals 0• Morbidity somewhere between 0 and 1
• Preferred method for economic evaluations
![Page 71: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Utility values• Side effects from interferon—.93• Mild angina—.90• Prophylactic mastectomy, oophorectomy—.86• Moderate angina—.70• Hospitalization for tuberculosis—.60• Severe angina—.50• Moderate to severe stroke—.39• Recurrent stroke—.12
![Page 72: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Components of economic analysis• Most with modeling software• Reference case (defines typical patient)• Strategies (set of alternative care pathways)• Time horizon (period to consider risks and
benefits)• Perspective (viewpoint of decision maker)• Effectiveness measure (outcome)• Decision tree allows varying components
![Page 73: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Decision tree
Singer ME and Applegate KE. Radiology 2001;219:611-620
![Page 74: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Components of economic analysis• Probabilities (all events in model have one)
• Estimated from historical data; literature, pilot study or expert opinion
• Utilities (assign utility to every health condition in model)
• Costs (identify all relevant)• Assumptions (due to limitations imposed by
available data; must explicitly state)
![Page 75: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Economic analysis—example• Whole body CT screening• Base-case analysis: from cohort of 500,000
50 year old men• Sex, age varied in analysis• Benefits of screening assumed due to earlier
detection of disease, improvement in survival• 8 conditions included in model: ovarian, pancreatic,
lung, liver, kidney and colon cancer; aortic aneurysm, coronary artery disease
• Costs of screening, follow-up tests, patient careBeinfeld, M. T. et al. Radiology 2005;234:415-422
![Page 76: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Beinfeld, M. T. et al. Radiology 2005;234:415-422
Schematic of decision-analytic model with life expectancy and cost outcomes used in the cost effectiveness analysis
![Page 77: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Economic analysis—example• Compared to routine care
• 6 days of life gained at $2513/patient• Incremental cost: $151,000/life-year gained• 90.8% had finding; only 2% had disease• 32.3% of total cost = work-up of FPs
• With favorable assumptions, one time screening not cost effective; would add burden to healthcare system
Beinfeld, M. T. et al. Radiology 2005;234:415-422
![Page 78: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Economic analysis—limitations• Not all agree with strategies chosen
• Was comparison to standard of care?• Were all reasonable options considered?• Was reference case typical of patient population?
• Fears of bias if study funded by drug company or equipment manufacturer
• If too early, data scant; if late, decisions made and model obsolete• Noncontrast CT for renal colic: accepted standard
without study of cost
![Page 79: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Conclusions
• Need to be familiar with concepts• Way to inform health care policy makers, guide
research• Goal to improve quality in rational manner, decrease
waste and unnecessary expenditure• Enhance Radiology community’s ability to participate
in health care decision-making locally and nationally• Preserve our specialty!
![Page 80: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Thanks!
![Page 81: Technology Assessment/Outcome & Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2016](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062904/5879a4c51a28ab082c8b6a1b/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
US does more of…
OECD Health Data 2015