A review of economic analysis in the vaccination program; decision making and governance: Adivisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the U.S. civilian population. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. ACIP elaborates on selection of its members and rules out concerns regarding its integrity, but fails to provide information about the importance of economic analysis in vaccine selection. ACIP recommendations can have large health and economic consequences. Emphasis on economic evaluation in health is a likely response to severe pressures of the federal and state health budget. This study describes the economic aspects considered by the ACIP while sanctioning a vaccine, and reviews the economic evaluations (our economic data) provided for vaccine deliberations. A five year study period from 2004 to 2009 is adopted. Publicly available data from ACIP web database is used. Drummond et al. (2005) checklist serves as a guide to assess the quality of economic evaluations presented. Drummond et al.'s checklist is a comprehensive hence it is unrealistic to expect every ACIP deliberation to meet all of their criteria. For practical purposes we have selected seven criteria that we judge to be significant criteria provided by Drummond et al. Twenty-four data points were obtained in a five year period. Our results show that out of the total twenty-four data point‘s (economic evaluations) only five data points received a score of six; that is six items on the list of seven were met. None of the data points received a perfect score of seven. Seven of the twenty-four data points received a score of five. A minimum of a two score was received by only one of the economic analyses. The type of economic evaluation along with the model criteria and ICER/QALY criteria met at 0.875 (87.5%). These three criteria were met at the highest rate among the seven criteria studied. Our study findings demonstrate that the perspective criteria met at 0.583 (58.3%) followed by source and sensitivity analysis criteria both tied at 0.541 (54.1%). The discount factor was met at 0.250 (25.0%).^ Economic analysis is not a novel concept to the ACIP. It has been practiced and presented at these meetings on a regular basis for more than five years. ACIP‘s stated goal is to utilize good quality epidemiologic, clinical and economic analyses to help policy makers choose among alternatives presented and thus achieve a better informed decision. As seen in our study the economic analyses over the years are inconsistent. The large variability coupled with lack of a standardized format may compromise the utility of the economic information for decision-making. While making recommendations, the ACIP takes into account all available information about a vaccine. Thus it is vital that standardized high quality economic information is provided at the ACIP meetings. Our study may provide a call for the ACIP to further investigate deficiencies within the system and thereby to improve economic evaluation data presented. ^

A critical assessment of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program against the eras which shaped it

This research study offers a critical assessment of NIH's Consensus Development Program (CDP), focusing upon its historical and valuative bases and its institutionalization in response to social and political forces. The analysis encompasses systems-level, as well as interpersonal factors in the adoption of consensus as the mechanism for resolving scientific controversies in clinical practice application. Further, the evolution of the CDP is also considered from an ecological perspective as a reasoned adaptation by NIH to pressures from its supporters and clients for translating biomedical research into medical practice. The assessment examines federal science policy and institutional designs for the inclusion of the public interest and democratic deliberation.^ The study relies on three distinct approaches to social research. Conventional historical methods were utilized in the interpretation of social and political influences across eras on the evolution of the National Institutes of Health and its response to demands for accountability and relevance through its Consensus Development Program. An embedded single-case study was utilized for an empirical examination of the CDP mechanism through five exemplar conferences. Lastly, a sociohistorical approach was taken to the CDP in order to consider its responsiveness to the values of the eras which created and shaped it. An exploration of organizational behavior with considerations for institutional reform as a response to continuing political and social pressure, it is a study of organizational birth, growth, and response to demands from its environment. The study has explanatory import in its attempt to account for the creation, timing, and form of the CDP, relative to political, institutional, and cultural pressures, and predictive import thorough its historical view which provides a basis for informed speculation on the playing out of tensions between extramural and intermural scientists and the current demands for health care reform. ^