COMPAR-EU Kosteneffectiviteit Web
General description cost-effectiveness part platform
This section of the platform presents the cost-effectiveness results of the COMPAR-EU project. Different results can be presented by selecting a disease, country of interest, time horizon used in the evaluation of costs and effects and type of intervention.
In a cost-effectiveness analysis both costs and health benefits of implementation of self-management interventions (SMIs) were compared with usual care. Mathematical modelling was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects SMIs. The models reflected the course of the specific diseases and its cost consequences over the lifetime of patients.
In economic evaluations health benefits of the treatments are usually expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to make results comparable across different diseases. All other consequences are expressed in monetary terms. The types of costs that are included in a cost-effectiveness study depend on the perspective adopted in the study. In the COMPAR-EU project a societal perspective has been used including healthcare costs as well as costs for productivity loss, informal care and cost in additional lifeyears gained.
For the COMPAR-EU project a headroom analysis has been performed to estimate how much an intervention may maximally cost, given its effectiveness and a threshold for cost effectiveness. The threshold value represents the maximum willingness to pay of society for one unit of health gain, for example one additional QALY. As the actual costs of SMI are unknown, headroom analysis are conducted for each country of interest at two different threshold values: €20,000 per QALY and €50,000 per QALY.
In the past decade health expenditure per capita increased annually with almost 2% in European Union (EU) member states. To use health care budgets as efficiently as possible, only health care interventions or treatments that provide good value for money should be funded collectively. Information about effects as well as costs of treatment options will, therefore, become more and more important to guide decision making about reimbursement, to develop clinical guidelines and to support evidence-based policy making. Cost-effectiveness studies can be used to help with these decisions.