Information on events hosted by the Network of Alberta Health Economists (NOAHE) as well as by national and international health economics organizations and associations.
The format of the HTAi Latin America Policy Forum echoes that of the HTAi Global Policy Forum and provides a unique opportunity as a leadership meeting for senior representatives from public and private sector organizations using HTA from the Latin America region.
Health budgets in Canada are under pressure due to increasing demand for care and the adoption of new, costly technologies. Since budgets are constrained, funding new technologies requires reallocation of resources away from existing services, with implications for the health of patients in need of these services. Policy makers use cost effectiveness (CE) analyses to understand the implications of these funding decisions. However, without a measure of “value for money”, CE analyses by themselves are unable to illustrate the overall impact of new technologies on population health. Appropriate CE thresholds would allow policy makers to use CE analyses to compare the health gains from new technologies to the health forgone due to the necessary resource reallocations.
Location: University of Calgary
Venue: TBC
Dates:
Health budgets in Canada are under pressure due to increasing demand for care and the adoption of new, costly technologies. Since budgets are constrained, funding new technologies requires reallocation of resources away from existing services, with implications for the health of patients in need of these services. Policy makers use cost effectiveness (CE) analyses to understand the implications of these funding decisions. However, without a measure of “value for money”, CE analyses by themselves are unable to illustrate the overall impact of new technologies on population health. Appropriate CE thresholds would allow policy makers to use CE analyses to compare the health gains from new technologies to the health forgone due to the necessary resource reallocations.
Despite the importance of CE thresholds, and the expressed need for them by policy makers and academics, no such estimates currently exist in Canada. Without a CE threshold, interpretation of CE analyses is problematic and relies solely on arbitrary rules, expert judgment and the advocacy of interested parties.
The objective of this session is to discuss the methods for estimating the cost-effectiveness threshold and report on a current analysis of an estimate of the cost-effectiveness threshold for cancer care in Alberta.
Dr. Eldon Spackman, Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Time: 2:00 pm MT
Location: Room G801E, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Health Sciences Building, University of Calgary, Calgary AB
Please click the following link to register for this event: https://www.etouches.com/noaheroundsii
Please click the following link to register to view the live webcast: https://goo.gl/1hsDPU
June 19, 2019, Institute of Health Economics - James O'Mahony, Trinity College Dublin
Appraising the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening intervention relies heavily on simulation methods and does so in ways that differ from the assessment of pharmaceuticals. As a consequence, cost-effectiveness estimates of cancer screening interventions are highly contingent on the modelling choices made by analysts. While documentation of modelling best practice has improved, evidence from the published literature still demonstrates considerable variance in the quality of analyses. Fundamental errors in the choice of comparator strategies and the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios are common. Other shortcomings of model methods are more subtle and have not been recognised within the screening CEA research community. Such shortcomings are striking given the sums spent annually on cancer screening and the potential health gains from well-optimised strategies.
Location: Edmonton
Venue: University of Alberta
Dates:
Appraising the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening intervention relies heavily on simulation methods and does so in ways that differ from the assessment of pharmaceuticals. As a consequence, cost-effectiveness estimates of cancer screening interventions are highly contingent on the modelling choices made by analysts. While documentation of modelling best practice has improved, evidence from the published literature still demonstrates considerable variance in the quality of analyses. Fundamental errors in the choice of comparator strategies and the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios are common. Other shortcomings of model methods are more subtle and have not been recognised within the screening CEA research community. Such shortcomings are striking given the sums spent annually on cancer screening and the potential health gains from well-optimised strategies.
This presentation will review some of the basic errors that are often made within cancer screening CEAs and provide guidance on how they can be easily avoided. The presentation will consider examples of how cervical cancer screening intensity has been poorly optimised. It will demonstrate the how the current Irish colorectal screening strategy is far below is its optimal intensity. The presentation will also briefly review why the literature to date on the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening does not provide a sound evidence base for current policy. The presentation will also consider how the current use of applied screening models can impede important aspects of research including, methods development, training of graduate students and analytical transparency. In order to address this, the presentation will demonstrate a simple modelling platform developed to enhance understanding of CEA simulation of cancer screening. This model is a microsimulation model coded in R and linked to an Excel-based user interface for the definition of parameters and the presentation of results.
Dr. James O'Mahony is a health economist with prior training in economics. His primary area of research is in the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening. In particular, he works with the CERVIVA consortium on the prevention of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases. This work involves microsimulation modelling of screening interventions. James has a research interest in the mismatch between CEA models the policy questions facing decision makers. His work in this area reflects a broader research interest in the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in general. He is interested in the choice of modelling methods and how this influences the metrics purported to inform policy choices. He has worked on the cost-effectiveness threshold and decision maker's adherence to it. He has also published on discounting and the handling of time in cost-effectiveness analyses.
Please note updated date and time!
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019
Time: 10:00 am MT
Location: University of Alberta, Venue TBD
Please click the following link to register for this event: https://www.etouches.com/noaheroundsii
Please click the following link to register to view the live webcast: https://goo.gl/1hsDPU
Finite public resources coupled with an increasing demand for health care means that decisions must be made about how to most efficiently allocate the scarce health care budget. This requires information about costs and benefits of health care. Health economists have developed techniques that can provide values for health care benefits. A technique that is increasingly used for this purpose is the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method.
Please join us for a free 3-day intensive course, “Introduction to Applied Health Economic Modelling,” covers introductory applications of cost-effectiveness analysis for resource allocation decisions, sensitivity analysis, economic modelling for cost-effective analysis (Markov Models), and decision uncertainty (re: the cost of doing nothing).