cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis: applications to health care programs and policies greg...
Post on 15-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Cost-benefit andcost-effectiveness analysis: applications
to health care programs and policies
Greg Mason
PRA Inc.and
University of Manitoba
October 28, 2011
Value for money• Value for money (VFM)is the priority activity in public and
private health policy.
• VFM = “bang per buck” or “buck per bang”
VFM = [benefits – cost] = net benefits
• Key questions:
• Do the benefits exceed the costs?
• What set of programs, interventions, and policies produce the greatest set of net benefits?
• What are the bad (negative VFM) ideas?
• Techniques from economics such as cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit offer useful tools for identifying and ranking VFM in health programs and policy.
2
Value for money
• Are we doing the right thing?
Relevance• Are we doing it well?
Performance
3
Value for money: relevance
• Relevance issues:– Issue 1 - Continued need for the program: Assessment
of the extent to which the program meets a demonstrable need and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
– Issue 2 - Alignment with payer/user/provider priorities: Assessment of the linkages between program objectives and (i) federal government priorities and (ii) departmental strategic outcomes.
– Issue 3 - Alignment with payer roles and responsibilities: Assessment of the roles and responsibilities of the payer in delivering the program.
Source: Adapted from Treasury Board of Canada, Directive on the Evaluation Function (Annex A) April 2009
4
• Performance issues (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy)– Issue 4 - Achievement of expected outcomes:
Outcomes achieved (including immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes).
– Issue 5 - Demonstration of efficiency and economy: Assessment of resource utilization (cost) in relation to the production of outputs and progress needed to realize expected outcomes.
Source: Adapted from Treasury Board of Canada, Directive on the Evaluation Function (Annex A) April 2009
Value for money: performance
5
Performance is measured along the results chain
Activities OutputsImmediateoutcomes
(Typically within a year)
Longer-termoutcomes(Up to 15 years)
EconomyCost to complete activities(e.g., cost of recruitment, course development)
EfficiencyCost per nurse trained
(e.g., total training costsdivided by graduates)
EffectivenessCost per client that becomes employed
(e.g., total program costs divided bynumber of patients that achieve a specific
health outcome)
6
7
Economy reflects the unit cost of engaging in activities, such as trainee assessment, case planning for clients, or creating and managing a clinic.
Example: Cost of developing courseware (wages + overhead + materials)Example: Cost of setting up flu clinics (location, staff training, media, notifying vulnerable groups)
Efficiency is the unit cost of all the activities needed to produce and output.
8
Example: Cost per nurse graduate (number of grads divided by the total program cost)Example: Cost per potential flu shot (before any shots are actually given)Example: Cost of awarding a dollar to third party delivery for screening program
9
Effectiveness (also termed cost-effectiveness) is the cost of obtaining one unit of outcome.
Example: • Number of flu shots (immediate) • Reduction in the incidence of flu as a result of a
vaccination promotion program (longer term)Example:
• Increase in screening incidence (short term)• Increase in five-year survival rate for Stage 2 breast
cancers (long term)
Application of result chain analysis: the logic model
The “logic model” is the core tool for conceptualizing causal relationships between program interventions and outcomes.
1. Health screening using third party delivery (e.g., diabetes screening in First Nation communities)
2. Electronic medical records to improve service delivery by providers (currently in primary care clinical settings)
10
Inputs / activities
Outputs Immediate outcomes
Final outcomes
Resources are mobilized to : Provide counselling Design promotional
material Train primary care
providers in the distribution of the screening kit
Outreach programs designed and implemented
Kits distributed Staff trained
Lower morbidity and mortality
Increased life years
Reduced health system costs
Increased social and economic contribution of survivors
Are we getting inputs / resources at the lowest cost ?
Are resources deployed at least cost ?
Are the processes well organized and coordinated?
Economy
Are the activities all needed for the outputs?
Are we creating outputs at the lowest cost ?
Are the outputs available on time and to the required quality ?
Efficiency
What is the cost per unit outcome?
Has the project/program produced outcomes at a cost consistent with other approaches?
Is this the best/least cost way to get desired outcomes?
Effectiveness
Intermediate outcomes
Client awareness
Increased use of screening
Increased participation in treatment and prevention
11
Results chain for a health screening program
Structure of vaccination CEA
• Benefit– reduced short-term cost due to illness– reduced long-term cost for caring for the small number of
catastrophic incidents– averted loss of incomes for those who are disabled/dying– averted cost of lost time at work and play
Cost– economic loss for the small number who experience
adverse reactions to vaccine – vaccination program
12
Cost-effectiveness analysis example –vaccination programs for at-risk groups
• Outputs include the creation of vaccination sites or alternative delivery (e.g., pharmacies, places of work, physician offices, shopping malls).
• Outcomes include:– the numbers vaccinated
– reduction in sick days
– avoided deaths
• The delivery approach with the lowest cost of organizing per potential vaccination delivered is the most cost-effective in terms of outputs.
• The delivery approach with the lowest number of sick days per dollar cost is the most cost-effective in terms of outcomes.
13
Vaccination for measles(Axnick et al., 1969)
Axnick, N.W., Shavell, S.M., and Witte, J.J.,(1969). Benefits Due to Immunization Against Measles, Public Health Reports , Vol. 84, No. 8.
14
15
16
Annual stream of benefits and costsAxnick (measles)
17
Summary of measles CEA
18
top related