Cost-effectiveness analysis of a 2-stage community-based hepatocellular carcinoma screening program in Taiwan

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been ranked as the top cause of death due to neoplasm malignancy in Taiwan for years. The high incidence of HCC in Taiwan is primarily attributed to high prevalence of hepatitis viral infection. Screening the subjects with liver cirrhosis for HCC was widely recommended by many previous studies. The latest practice guideline for management of HCC released by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) in 2005 recommended that the high risk groups, including cirrhotic patients, chronic HBV/HCV carriers, and subjects with family history of HCC and etc., should undergo surveillance.^ This study aims to investigate (1) whether the HCC screening program can prolong survival period of the high risk group, (2) what is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the HCC screening program in Taiwan, as compared with a non-screening strategy from the payer perspective, (3) which high risk group has the lowest ICER for the HCC screening program from the insurer's perspective, in comparison with no screening strategy of each group, and (4) the estimated total cost of providing the HCC screening program to all high risk groups.^ The high risk subjects in the study were identified from the communities with high prevalence of hepatitis viral infection and classified into three groups (cirrhosis group, early cirrhosis group, and no cirrhosis group) at different levels of risk to HCC by status of liver disease at the time of enrollment. The repeated ultrasound screenings at an interval of 3, 6, and 12 months were applied to cirrhosis group, early cirrhosis group, and no cirrhosis group, respectively. The Markov-based decision model was constructed to simulate progression of HCC and to estimate the ICER for each group of subjects.^ The screening group had longer survival in the statistical results and the model outcomes. Owing to the low HCC incidence rate in the community-based screening program, screening services only have limited effect on survival of the screening group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the HCC screening program was $3834 per year of life saved, in comparison with the non-screening strategy. The estimated total cost of each group from the screening model over 13.5 years approximately consumes 0.13%, 1.06%, and 0.71% of total amount of adjusted National Health Expenditure from Jan 1992 to Jun 2005. ^ The subjects at high risk of developing HCC to undergo repeated ultrasound screenings had longer survival than those without screening, but screening was not the only factor to cause longer survival in the screening group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the 2-stage community-based HCC screening program in Taiwan was small. The HCC screening program was worthy of investment in Taiwan. In comparison with early cirrhosis group and no cirrhosis group, cirrhosis group has the lowest ICER when the screening period is less than 19 years. The estimated total cost of providing the HCC screening program to all high risk groups consumes approximately 1.90% of total amount of adjusted 13.5-year NHE in Taiwan.^

Health information exchange: Using metrics to address quality of care and return on investment

Health Information Exchange (HIE) will play a key part in our nation’s effort to improve healthcare. The evidence of HIEs transformational role in healthcare delivery systems is quite limited. The lack of such evidence led us to explore what exists in the healthcare industry that may provide evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of HIEs. The objective of the study was to find out how many fully functional HIEs are using any measurements or metrics to gauge impact of HIE on quality improvement (QI) and on return on investment (ROI).^ A web-based survey was used to determine the number of operational HIEs using metrics for QI and ROI. Our study highlights the fact that only 50 percent of the HIEs who responded use or plan to use metrics. However, 95 percent of the respondents believed HIEs improve quality of care while only 56 percent believed HIE showed positive ROI. Although operational HIEs present numerous opportunities to demonstrate the business model for improving health care quality, evidence to document the impact of HIEs is lacking. ^