No abstract

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) provides a clear decision rule: undertake an intervention if the monetary value of its benefits exceed its costs. However, due to a reluctance to characterize health benefits in monetary terms, users of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses must rely on arbitrary standards (e.g., < $50,000 per QALY) to deem a program "cost-effective." Moreover, there is no consensus regarding the appropriate dollar value per QALY gained upon which to base resource allocation decisions. To address this, the authors determined the value of a QALY as implied by the value-of-life literature and compared this value with arbitrary thresholds for cost-effectiveness that have come into common use. A literature search identified 42 estimates of the value of life that were appropriate for inclusion. These estimates were classified by method: human capital (HK), contingent valuation (CV), revealed preference/job risk (RP-JR) and revealed preference/non-occupational safety (RP-S), and by U.S. or non-U.S. origin. After converting these value-of-life estimates to 1997 U.S. dollars, the life expectancy of the study population, age-specific QALY weights, and a 3% real discount rate were used to calculate the implied value of a QALY. An ordinary least-squares regression of the value of a QALY on study type and national origin explained 28.4% of the variance across studies. Most of the explained variance was attributable to study type; national origin did not significantly affect the values. Median values by study type were $24,777 (HK estimates), $93,402 (RP-S estimates), $161,305 (CV estimates), and $428,286 (RP-JR estimates). With the exception of HK, these far exceed the "rules of thumb" that are frequently used to determine whether an intervention produces an acceptable increase in health benefits in exchange for incremental expenditures.

No abstract

A brief, simple 12-item questionnaire demonstrated validity and reliability and seemed to be responsive to change for reflux and dyspeptic symptoms.

This paper estimates the effects of a large employer's value-based insurance initiative designed to improve adherence to recommended treatment regimens. The intervention reduced copayments for five chronic medication classes in the context of a disease management (DM) program. Compared to a control employer that used the same DM program, adherence to medications in the value-based intervention increased for four of five medication classes, reducing nonadherence by 7-14 percent. The results demonstrate the potential for copayment reductions for highly valued services to increase medication adherence above the effects of existing DM programs.

OBJECTIVES:To compare statin nonadherence and discontinuation rates of primary and secondary prevention populations and to identify factors that may affect those suboptimal medication-taking behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Statin nonadherence and discontinuation was suboptimal and similar across prevention categories. Incremental efforts, including those that decrease out-of-pocket pharmaceutical expenditures, should focus on improving adherence in high-risk populations most likely to benefit from statin use. DESIGN:

Cost-related medication restriction among middle-aged and elderly Americans is associated with an increased risk of a subsequent decline in their self-reported health status, and among those with preexisting cardiovascular disease with higher rates of angina and nonfatal heart attacks or strokes. Such cost-related medication restriction could be a mechanism for worse health outcomes among low-income and other vulnerable populations who lack adequate insurance coverage.

By abandoning the archaic principle that all services must cost the same for all patients, we can move to a high-value health system.by Michael E. Chernew, Allison B. Rosen, and A. Mark Fendrick ABSTRACT: When everyone is required to pay the same out-of-pocket amount for health care services whose benefits depend on patient characteristics, there is enormous potential for both under-and overuse. Unlike most current health plan designs, Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID) explicitly acknowledges and responds to patient heterogeneity. It encourages the use of services when the clinical benefits exceed the cost and likewise discourages the use of services when the benefits do not justify the cost. This paper makes the case for VBID and outlines current VBID initiatives in the private sector as well as barriers to further adoption. [Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007): w195-w203 (published online 30