A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.

Cost–benefit analysis Decision-making Health policy Preventive health

Journal

Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Dec 2021
Historique:
received: 08 04 2021
accepted: 24 11 2021
entrez: 20 12 2021
pubmed: 21 12 2021
medline: 22 12 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Australian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations. We analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers. Nine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making. This paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Australian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations.
METHODS METHODS
We analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers.
RESULTS RESULTS
Nine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34923970
doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00796-w
pii: 10.1186/s12961-021-00796-w
pmc: PMC8684630
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

147

Subventions

Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : APP1152968

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e42831
pubmed: 23028434
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Jan;35(1):5-13
pubmed: 27943173
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 24;13:1001
pubmed: 24153037
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 19;15(6):e0234804
pubmed: 32559212
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Dec;8(6):593-617
pubmed: 20528370
Math Popul Stud. 1998;7(1):29-49, 109
pubmed: 12321476
Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(11):1103-9
pubmed: 11735677
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Apr;41(2):115-117
pubmed: 27868297
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Sep;19(5):635-644
pubmed: 34105080
Obes Rev. 2012 Feb;13(2):162-73
pubmed: 21955783
Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):838-47
pubmed: 21872752
Health Policy. 2009 Dec;93(2-3):85-92
pubmed: 19709773
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2019 Dec 17;17:29
pubmed: 31866768
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 07;18(11):
pubmed: 34200344
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Mar;64(3):209-12
pubmed: 19692711
J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019 Jan 26;10(Suppl 1):73-105
pubmed: 33282628
JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172-7
pubmed: 8827972
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021 Sep;19(5):653-664
pubmed: 34056701
Vaccine. 2015 Jul 31;33(32):3788-94
pubmed: 26144897
JAMA. 2005 Nov 23;294(20):2630-2
pubmed: 16304078
J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019;10(Suppl 1):15-50
pubmed: 32968616
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jul;36(7):745-758
pubmed: 29779120
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018 Apr;42(2):207-213
pubmed: 28898490
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2020 Oct;44(5):336-340
pubmed: 32865859
Int J Obes (Lond). 2019 May;43(5):1102-1112
pubmed: 30926947
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018 Dec;16(6):765-778
pubmed: 30094591
JAMA. 1996 Oct 16;276(15):1253-8
pubmed: 8849754
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Apr;54(4):600-602
pubmed: 29338958
Health Policy. 2021 Sep;125(9):1238-1246
pubmed: 34243979
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982

Auteurs

Jaithri Ananthapavan (J)

Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jaithri.ananthapavan@deakin.edu.au.
Global Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jaithri.ananthapavan@deakin.edu.au.

Marj Moodie (M)

Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Global Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Andrew Milat (A)

NSW Ministry of Health, New South Wales, Australia.
School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Lennert Veerman (L)

School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Elizabeth Whittaker (E)

NSW Ministry of Health, New South Wales, Australia.

Rob Carter (R)

Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH