Cost-effectiveness analysis of humanitarian relief interventions: visceral leishmaniasis treatment in the Sudan

Spending by aid agencies on emergencies has quadrupled over the last decade, to over US$ 6 billion. To date, cost-effectiveness has seldom been considered in the prioritization and evaluation of emergency interventions. The sheer volume of resources spent on humanitarian aid and the chronicity of many humanitarian interventions call for more attention to be paid to the issue of 'value for money'. In this paper we present data from a major humanitarian crisis, an epidemic of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in war-torn Sudan. The special circumstances provided us, in retrospect, with unusually accurate data on excess mortality, costs of the intervention and its effects, thus allowing us to express cost-effectiveness as the cost per Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted. The cost-effectiveness ratio, of US$ 18.40 per DALY (uncertainty range between US$ 13.53 and US$ 27.63), places the treatment of VL in Sudan among health interventions considered 'very flood value for money' (interventions of less than US$ 25 per DALY). We discuss the usefulness of this analysis to the internal management of the VL programme, the procurement of funds for the programme, and more generally, to priority setting in humanitarian relief interventions. We feel that in evaluations of emergency interventions attempts could be made more often to perform cost-effectiveness analyses, including the use of DALYs, provided that the outcomes of these analyses are seen in the broad context of the emergency situation and its consequences on the affected population. This paper provides a first contribution to what is hoped to become an international database of cost-effectiveness studies of health outcome such as the DALY.

Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?

This paper studies life-cycle preferences over consumption and health status. We show that cost-effectiveness analysis is consistent with cost-benefit analysis if the Lifetime utility function is additive over time, multiplicative in the utility of consumption and the utility of health status, and if the utility of consumption is constant over time. We derive the conditions under which the lifetime utility function takes this form, both under expected utility theory and under rank-dependent utility theory, which is currently the most important nonexpected utility theory. If cost-effectiveness analysis is consistent with cost-benefit analysis, it is possible to derive tractable expressions for the willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The willingness to pay for QALYs depends on wealth, remaining life expectancy, health status, and the possibilities for intertemporal substitution of consumption. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Estimating the cost of contact for non-resident parents: A budget standards approach

Most Western countries have, for some time, provided income support and/or taxation relief to parents with children in their care. The significant amount of research into the costs of children to couple and sole parent households has been important in assessing and developing family support policies. Changing societal expectations about the level of involvement of fathers in child rearing activities has highlighted the need to understand the costs facing usually male non-resident parents in having contact with their children. The budget standards methodology is used in this paper to estimate the costs for non-resident parents exercising regular contact with their children. Costs of contact are found to be high. For contact with one child for 20 per cent of the year, costs of contact represent about 40 per cent of the costs of that same child in an intact couple household with a medium income and more than half of the costs of that child in a household with low income. Household infrastructure and transportation is the reason for high costs. One implication of this finding is that the total cost of children substantially increases when parents separate. The article discusses some policy implications of these findings. This research is of relevance to social security, taxation, family law and child support policies and administration.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: family interventions for schizophrenia and related conditions

Objective: Existing evidence suggests that family interventions can be effective in reducing relapse rates in schizophrenia and related conditions. Despite this, such interventions are not routinely delivered in Australian mental health services. The objective of the current study is to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of introducing three types of family interventions, namely: behavioural family management (BFM); behavioural intervention for families (BIF); and multiple family groups (MFG) into current mental health services in Australia. Method: The ICER of each of the family interventions is assessed from a health sector perspective, including the government, persons with schizophrenia and their families/carers using a standardized methodology. A two-stage approach is taken to the assessment of benefit. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (including equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders) to results. The robustness of results is tested using multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The most cost-effective intervention, in order of magnitude, is BIF (A$8000 per DALY averted), followed by MFG (A$21 000 per DALY averted) and lastly BFM (A$28 000 per DALY averted). The inclusion of time costs makes BFM more cost-effective than MFG. Variation of discount rate has no effect on conclusions. Conclusions: All three interventions are considered 'value-for-money' within an Australian context. This conclusion needs to be tempered against the methodological challenge of converting clinical outcomes into a generic economic outcome measure (DALY). Issues surrounding the feasibility of routinely implementing such interventions need to be addressed.

Assessing cost-effectiveness - Mental health: introduction to the study and methods

Objective: The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness - Mental Health (ACE-MH) study aims to assess from a health sector perspective, whether there are options for change that could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's current mental health services by directing available resources toward 'best practice' cost-effective services. Method: The use of standardized evaluation methods addresses the reservations expressed by many economists about the simplistic use of League Tables based on economic studies confounded by differences in methods, context and setting. The cost-effectiveness ratio for each intervention is calculated using economic and epidemiological data. This includes systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials for efficacy, the Australian Surveys of Mental Health and Wellbeing for current practice and a combination of trials and longitudinal studies for adherence. The cost-effectiveness ratios are presented as cost (A$) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) saved with a 95% uncertainty interval based on Monte Carlo simulation modelling. An assessment of interventions on 'second filter' criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') allows broader concepts of 'benefit' to be taken into account, as well as factors that might influence policy judgements in addition to cost-effectiveness ratios. Conclusions: The main limitation of the study is in the translation of the effect size from trials into a change in the DALY disability weight, which required the use of newly developed methods. While comparisons within disorders are valid, comparisons across disorders should be made with caution. A series of articles is planned to present the results.

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression in children and adolescents

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents, compared to 'current practice'. Method: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity'; 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are tracked for the duration of a new episode of MDD arising in eligible children (age 6-17 years) in the Australian population in the year 2000. Simulation-modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Compared to current practice, CBT by public psychologists is the most cost-effective intervention for MDD in children and adolescents at A$9000 per DALY saved (95% UI A$3900 to A$24 000). SSRIs and CBT by other providers are less cost-effective but likely to be less than A$50 000 per DALY saved (> 80% chance). CBT is more effective than SSRIs in children and adolescents, resulting in a greater total health benefit (DALYs saved) than could be achieved with SSRIs. Issues that require attention for the CBT intervention include equity concerns, ensuring an adequate workforce, funding arrangements and acceptability to various stakeholders. Conclusions: Cognitive behavioural therapy provided by a public psychologist is the most effective and cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of MDD in children and adolescents. However, this option is not currently accessible by all patients and will require change in policy to allow more widespread uptake. It will also require 'start-up' costs and attention to ensuring an adequate workforce.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice. Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted. Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient. Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.