How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13.


Journal

Applied health economics and health policy
ISSN: 1179-1896
Titre abrégé: Appl Health Econ Health Policy
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101150314

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2021
Historique:
accepted: 26 05 2021
pubmed: 22 7 2021
medline: 26 11 2021
entrez: 21 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The endogenous nature of healthcare expenditure means that instruments are often used when estimating the relationship between expenditure and mortality. Previous English studies of this relationship have largely relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments. A recent paper proposed that exogenous components of the resource allocation formula, used to distribute the national healthcare budget to local health authorities, be used as instruments. To estimate the relationship between healthcare expenditure and mortality by disease area for England from 2003/4 to 2012/13 using exogenous elements from the resource allocation formula as instruments for expenditure. To use these disease-specific estimates to calculate the marginal cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for English NHS expenditure. To compare these estimates with those that relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments. The two-stage least squares estimator is used to determine the annual relationship between mortality and healthcare expenditure by disease area across 151 local authorities. These disease-specific outcome elasticities are combined with information about survival and morbidity disease burden in different disease areas to calculate the marginal cost per QALY for English National Health Service (NHS) expenditure. The results suggest an annual marginal cost per QALY of between £5000 and £10,000. This is similar to that reported previously by studies that used statistical tests to justify their instruments. These cost per QALY estimates are much lower than the threshold currently used by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (£20,000 to £30,000) to assess whether a new pharmaceutical product should be funded by the NHS. Our estimates suggest that guidance issued by NICE is likely to do more harm than good, reducing health outcomes overall for the NHS. There may be legitimate reasons why such harms are deemed appropriate, but it is only through the type of empirical analysis in this paper that the reasons for these 'harms' are likely to be articulated and explicitly justified.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The endogenous nature of healthcare expenditure means that instruments are often used when estimating the relationship between expenditure and mortality. Previous English studies of this relationship have largely relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments. A recent paper proposed that exogenous components of the resource allocation formula, used to distribute the national healthcare budget to local health authorities, be used as instruments.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relationship between healthcare expenditure and mortality by disease area for England from 2003/4 to 2012/13 using exogenous elements from the resource allocation formula as instruments for expenditure. To use these disease-specific estimates to calculate the marginal cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for English NHS expenditure. To compare these estimates with those that relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments.
METHODS
The two-stage least squares estimator is used to determine the annual relationship between mortality and healthcare expenditure by disease area across 151 local authorities. These disease-specific outcome elasticities are combined with information about survival and morbidity disease burden in different disease areas to calculate the marginal cost per QALY for English National Health Service (NHS) expenditure.
RESULTS
The results suggest an annual marginal cost per QALY of between £5000 and £10,000. This is similar to that reported previously by studies that used statistical tests to justify their instruments.
CONCLUSION
These cost per QALY estimates are much lower than the threshold currently used by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (£20,000 to £30,000) to assess whether a new pharmaceutical product should be funded by the NHS. Our estimates suggest that guidance issued by NICE is likely to do more harm than good, reducing health outcomes overall for the NHS. There may be legitimate reasons why such harms are deemed appropriate, but it is only through the type of empirical analysis in this paper that the reasons for these 'harms' are likely to be articulated and explicitly justified.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34286470
doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00663-3
pii: 10.1007/s40258-021-00663-3
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

885-903

Subventions

Organisme : Health Services Research Programme (GB)
ID : EEPRU grant reference 104/0001

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Références

Nolte E, McKee M. Does health care save lives? Avoidable mortality revisited. Research Report. The Nuffield Trust, London. 2004. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/does-healthcare-save-lives-avoidable-mortality-revisited . Accessed 21 June 2020.
Nixon J, Ulmann P. The relationship between health care expenditure and health outcomes. Eur J Health Econ. 2006;7(1):7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-005-0336-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-005-0336-8 pubmed: 16429295
Edney LC, Afzali HHA, Cheng TC, Karnon J. Estimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian health system. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):239–52.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0585-2
Van Baal P, Perry-Duxberry M, Bakx P, Versteegh M, van Doorslaer E, Brouwer W. A cost-effectiveness threshold based on the marginal returns of cardiovascular hospital spending. Health Econ. 2019;28(1):87–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3831 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3831 pubmed: 30273967
Vallejo-Torres L, Garcia-Lorenzo B, Serrano-Aguilar P. Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS. Health Econ. 2018;27(4):746–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3633 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3633 pubmed: 29282798
Siverskog J, Henriksson M. Estimating the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden’s public healthcare sector. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:751–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01039-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01039-0 pubmed: 30796552 pmcid: 6602994
Lomas J, Claxton K, Martin S. Estimating the marginal productivity of the English National Health Service from 2003/04 to 2012/13. Value Health. 2019;22(9):995–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1926 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1926 pubmed: 31511189
Andrews M, Elamin O, Hall AR, Kyriakoulis K, Sutton M. Inference in the presence of redundant moment conditions and the impact of government health expenditure on health outcomes in England. Econom Rev. 2017;36(1–3):23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2016.1114205 .
doi: 10.1080/07474938.2016.1114205
Claxton K, Lomas J, Martin S. The impact of NHS expenditure on health outcomes in England: alternative approaches to identification in all-cause and disease specific models of mortality. Health Econ. 2018;27(6):1017–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3650 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3650 pubmed: 29607571
Staiger D, Stock J. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65:557–86.
doi: 10.2307/2171753
Angrist J, Pischke J-S. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press; 2009.
doi: 10.1515/9781400829828
Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd ed. MIT Press; 2010.
Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):826–42.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.12.002
Martin S, Rice N, Smith PC. Comparing costs and outcomes across programmes of health care. Health Econ. 2012;21(3):316–37.
doi: 10.1002/hec.1716
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, Devlin N, Smith PC, Sculpher M. Methods for the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503 (v–vi).
doi: 10.3310/hta19140
Department of Health. Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula. Sixth Edition. 2008. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130124044910/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_091848.pdf . Accessed 21 June 2020.
Propper C, Van Reenen J. Can pay regulation kill? Panel data evidence on the effect of labor markets on hospital performance. J Polit Econ. 2010;118(2):222–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/653137 .
doi: 10.1086/653137
Carr-Hill RA, Geoffrey H, Stephen M, Stuart P, Trevor AS, Peter CS. Franz Edelman award papers. Interfaces. 1997;27(1):53–70.
doi: 10.1287/inte.27.1.53
Smith PC. Resource allocation and purchasing in the health sector: the English experience. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86:884–8.
doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.049528
Baum CF, Schaffer ME, Stillman S. ivreg2: Stata module for extended instrumental variables/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression. 2010. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s425401.html . Accessed 21 June 2020.
Pesaran MH, Taylor LW. Diagnostics for IV regressions. Oxford Bull Econ Stat. 1999;61(2):255–65.
doi: 10.1111/1468-0084.00128
Soares M, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Health opportunity costs: assessing the implications of uncertainty using elicitation methods with experts. Med Decis Making. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20916450 .
doi: 10.1177/0272989X20916450 pubmed: 32441558 pmcid: 7509606
Soares MO, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. Authors’ Response to: “Health opportunity costs and expert elicitation: a comment on Soares et al.” by Sampson, Firth, and Towse. Med Decis Making. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20987222 .
Lakhani A, Olearnik H, Eayres D eds. Compendium of clinical and health indicators: data definitions and user guide for computer files. London: National Centre for Health Outcomes Development. 2006. An updated version (December 2015) is available at: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/60/236EC2/Compendium/User/Guide/2015/Dec/Annex/3/V1.pdf . Accessed 23 Jan 2021.
Curtis LA. Unit costs of health and social care 2014. Other. Personal Social Services Research Unit, Canterbury Kent. 2014. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/46138/1/sources-of-information.pdf . Accessed 25 Jan 2021.
Vallejo-Torres L, García-Lorenzo B, Castilla-Rodríguez I, Valcárcel-Nazco C, García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Polentinos-Castro E, Serrano-Aguilar P. On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Health. 2016;19(5):558–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020 pubmed: 27565273
Ryen L, Svensson M. The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1289–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3085 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3085 pubmed: 25070495
National Audit Office. Investigation into the cancer drugs fund. HC 442, Session 2015–16. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Investigation-into-the-Cancer-Drugs-Fund1.pdf . Accessed 21 June 2020.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, 2004, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191504/NICE_guide_to_the_methods_of_technology_appraisal.pdf . Accessed 21 June 2020.
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National institute for clinical excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224
Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2014;24(10):1256–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3086 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3086 pubmed: 25251336
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Culyer AJ. Causes for concern: Is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? Health Econ. 2015;24(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3130 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.3130 pubmed: 25488707
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(9):796–7. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1405158 pubmed: 25162885
Bertram MY, Lauer JA, Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kienya M, Hill S. Use and misuse of thresholds cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:925–30.
doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.164418
Harrell F. Regression modelling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer Series in Statistics; 2015.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7

Auteurs

Stephen Martin (S)

Department of Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. sdm1@york.ac.uk.

James Lomas (J)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Karl Claxton (K)

Department of Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Francesco Longo (F)

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Articles similaires

Humans Blindness Male Female Cross-Sectional Studies

Total elbow arthroplasty in England.

Zaid Hamoodi, Adrian Sayers, Michael R Whitehouse et al.
1.00
Humans England Female Male Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow
Humans Patient Reported Outcome Measures Neoplasms Electronic Health Records Delivery of Health Care

Classifications MeSH