SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2061505836> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 89 of 89 with 100 items per page.

W2061505836 endingPage "38" @default.
W2061505836 startingPage "32" @default.
W2061505836 abstract "Over the last 20 years, there is evidence to show that doctors increasingly accept the need to consider the financial implications of the treatments they prescribe. In the field of epilepsy treatment, economic evaluations have considered the financial impact of physicians' choices in newly diagnosed epilepsy, chronic active epilepsy, epilepsy surgery, and childhood epilepsy. A variety of economic methods have been applied including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis, and more recently, cost–benefit analysis. The real effect of this research on treatment decisions is yet to be established. We discuss the impact that economic data, in the form of cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analyses, have on epilepsy-treatment decisions at the clinical and policy levels. The broader literature concerning physician attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness is reviewed and, with examples from countries throughout the world, the extent to which health economic research has affected epilepsy-related treatment decisions is discussed. Epilepsy is one of the most common, serious, neurologic disorders worldwide (1). Although the cost of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments is relatively modest compared with new treatments for other neurologic conditions, the high prevalence and chronicity of epilepsy mean that, in public health terms, the overall cost of its treatment is high. Furthermore, many of the recent advances for treating epilepsy, such as implantable vagal nerve stimulators and new techniques of epilepsy surgery, have high initial cost but may offer long-term savings if patients become seizure free (2,3). Economic factors are important at every level of epilepsy treatment, although the way in which costs affect medical decisions depends, to a large extent, on the country and health system that is considered. For example, in many developing countries, the choices that individual doctors make about the investigation and treatment of patients are governed primarily by a patient's ability to pay. In rural areas of a country such as India, patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy may be prescribed phenobarbitone, despite the poor long-term side-effect profile of this drug, as most patients find the cost of modern AEDs prohibitive (4). In countries with well-developed social health insurance systems, such as those that exist in Western Europe or Australia, treatment is often free, or heavily subsidized, to the patient at the point of delivery. In these countries, a doctor's ability to prescribe expensive AEDs may be limited to those included on approved formulary lists or government reimbursement schedules. Statutory protocols may restrict the situations in which a doctor may prescribe certain drugs. Drug prices are a crude means of comparing the economic impact of epilepsy treatments. Table 1 shows how they vary across three countries. Those who rely on drug prices as the sole means of assessing the economic impact of treatment fail to take into account the savings that might arise if a patient's condition improves: for example, in most cases, a seizure-free patient requires less medical follow-up and is more likely to be able to return to work (5). Treatments may also improve the quality of a patient's life, and this can also be considered in economic terms, using outcomes such as Quality Adjusted Life Years or contingent valuation measures such as Willingness to Pay (6). Cost-effectiveness studies have been proposed as a method by which decisions about finite resources may be reached and health care delivery optimized for the money spent (7). Economic evaluation involves the comparative assessment of all courses of action in terms of their clinical consequences and resource costs (6). By making all relevant costs and consequences explicit, cost-effectiveness analyses aim to provide clinical decision makers with information to choose rationally between treatment options. There are two distinct settings in which economic information may be considered: (a) at the clinical care context, where doctors make decisions in conjunction with their patients, as should be the case within a hospital or outpatient setting; and (b) in the “committee-room,” where policy decisions about resource allocation and rationing, which affect physicians' ability to treat patients, are made for heath plans and systems. In general, in deciding on appropriate epilepsy treatments, physicians must balance the risks and costs of a given treatment with its potential benefits. Potential treatment-related adverse events and the cost of medication must be weighed against the clinical, psychological, social, and economic impacts of inadequately treated seizures (in terms of frequency and/or severity). There is rarely an instance in which the risks and costs of not treating at all are thought to outweigh the risk and cost of treatment, although treatment during pregnancy may fall into this category. Rather, the treatment decision usually focuses on the comparative risk, benefits, and costs of alternative AEDs. In making these treatment decisions, economic information may be considered by doctors when investigating and treating their patients either at the bedside or in the outpatient clinic. There is evidence to suggest that the opinions of individual physicians and neurologists regarding the relevance of economic information in clinical practice have changed dramatically over recent years. Whether this change in opinion has translated into more cost-effective clinical practice is less clear (8). Before the 1980s, the effect of economic evaluations on health care decision-making was minimal (9). Little economic research had been performed and, in the case of epilepsy, only rudimentary studies of the cost of illness had been published (10). Since the 1990s, however, the number of economic evaluations of treatment has increased markedly. There is evidence to suggest that individual doctors in a variety of countries throughout the world, including Holland, Denmark, Germany Australia, Canada, Sweden, the United States, and the United Kingdom (11–15), have become aware of the need for cost-effectiveness analysis and economic evaluation in everyday practice. Although few surveys have been published, studies performed in Europe and the United States reveal that most physicians accept the need to consider economic factors when treating patients. In a study by Reichert et al. (16) of 134 U.S. physicians, 88% of surveyed physicians thought that medication costs were an important factor in making prescription decisions, and 71% were willing to sacrifice some degree of efficacy to make drugs more affordable for their patients. Almost all the physicians (94%) reported that cost was a more important factor when the patient was paying for his or her own medications. Safavi and Hayward (17) also surveyed U.S. physicians regarding factors influencing treatment decisions. Their results indicated that when deciding between medications with similar efficacies and side effects, cost, patient compliance, and patient preference were the most important factors. Hux et al. (18) also found that prescription decisions by Canadian physicians were strongly influenced by drug costs. In a survey of a disparate selection of physicians, hospital managers, and individuals in government agencies in nine Western European countries, generally positive attitudes toward economic-evaluation studies were demonstrated, although many misgivings toward the current state of the art were highlighted (19). Recently, United States neurologists were surveyed about restricting the prescription of five new costly AEDs as part of a wider study considering attitudes towards rationing (20). It was clear that most neurologists recognized the need to ration health care, and believed that cost-effectiveness research is one method to achieve efficient distribution of resources. Only 25% of respondents thought that there should be no restrictions placed on the prescription of any of the five newer AEDs described in the questionnaire. Half of the respondents (57%) indicated that only carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenytoin (PHT) should be available for the treatment of new-onset complex partial seizures unless there was a specific contraindication to such use. This study did not establish whether these attitudes reflect the influence of a number of recent economic studies in epilepsy or are a result of a more general acceptance of the need to consider cost issues in all treatment. Despite the apparent importance of economic information in treatment decisions, many physicians are unaware of medication costs. In the Reichert et al. (16) study, 80% of the participating physicians indicated that they often did not know the cost of medications. Other studies have also indicated little knowledge of medication costs by physicians (17,21–23). Once medication costs are known, these costs appear to be influential in making treatment decisions. Salman et al. (24) evaluated the impact of drug costs on treatment decisions for hypertension. Using hypothetical scenarios of patients with moderate hypertension, participating physicians were substantially more likely to choose a less expensive medication when the drug costs were explicitly presented. Similar effects of drug-cost knowledge were seen in a study of treatment choices for urinary tract infections (25). Based on these studies, it is likely that physicians treating individuals with epilepsy will consider cost an important factor. However, these physicians may have only limited knowledge regarding the relative costs of AEDs. Further, it is not clear if these attitudes translate into practice behaviour, as discussed later. Cost-effectiveness results are a step beyond information on drug cost alone, additionally requiring an understanding of how to interpret the results. Few studies have assessed physicians' attitudes towards cost-effectiveness studies. Ginsberg et al. (26) surveyed 1,000 randomly selected California physicians in the United States. Most physicians (88%) considered cost-effectiveness to be an important factor in making treatment decisions. However, implementation of cost-effectiveness in clinical practice may be problematic. Many of the surveyed physicians (72%) indicated that only the treating physician and patient should decide what treatments are cost worthy. Further, physicians were divided on whether they should offer treatments with little likelihood of success regardless of cost; 53% of those surveyed agreed with the statement “if a medical intervention has any chance of helping the patient, it is the physician's duty to offer it.” Given the lack of knowledge regarding drug costs and (once known) their role in influencing treatment decisions, it is likely that physicians are unaware of the cost-effectiveness of many AEDs. Physicians might use cost-effectiveness information in treatment decisions were it available to them. However, the thresholds at which physicians would consider an AED cost-effective are likely to vary substantially and be easier to define in abstract rather than for an individual patient. Especially for individuals with refractory epilepsy, physicians might be willing to recommend medications or other treatments despite minimal expected value for the intervention's cost. Spending on AEDs has been estimated to be increasing at a rate 10% per year in developed countries (27). This increase may provide indirect evidence that despite changing attitudes, cost considerations are low on the list of individual doctors' priorities in the clinical care context. Alternatively, the increase may reflect the baseline increase in costs for AEDs (which, as with most other medical goods and services, increase in price at rates greater than that of overall inflation) or may be due to physicians switching to newer and more expensive AEDs based on beliefs in their superior effectiveness and/or side-effect profiles. There does appear to be an “inherent contradiction” between research showing that physicians' believe that prescribing should be more cost-effective and data concerning their actual prescribing patterns (8). Recent qualitative and quantitative research on doctors' attitudes toward economic data may explain this apparent paradox. Physicians recognize the ethical dilemma of applying cost-effectiveness arguments to individual patients. Physicians increasingly accept their role as responsible stewards for society's finite resources, but this duty may conflict with their fiduciary duty to do everything possible for the patient facing them in a consulting room (28). For example, a doctor often has to choose between AEDs to treat a patient with recently diagnosed epilepsy. For partial seizures, PHT, CBZ, and lamotrigine (LTG) have been proven to be equally efficacious in terms of seizure control for newly diagnosed patients. It is argued that LTG may have benefits in terms of side-effect profile and tolerability, and thus improve quality of life, but it is many times the cost of PHT or CBZ. Other dilemmas may occur in some settings where there may be differential fee structures between consultants when patients are referred to specialists: the fee of the nationally prominent epilepsy specialist may be higher than that of a local specialist, although treatment by a knowledgeable epilepsy specialist may result in more appropriate treatments, improved patient outcomes, and decreased costs. Some doctors may feel less inclined to consider societal needs against those of an individual, particularly when faced with a patient who asks “but what if it were you, doctor?” and the ethical issues surrounding this “double agent” role have been well described (29). Doctors may have difficulty with the methods and validity of health economic methods. Medical training in most countries contains little emphasis on social and economic sciences, and many physicians may find the results of economic assessments difficult to understand or apply. Physicians may, therefore, rely on secondary or even tertiary sources of evidence about the cost-effectiveness of treatment. Economic evaluations are suspected of being biased, particularly if sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (30). A survey of European health care workers revealed a view that economic studies rely on “too many assumptions,” and the significance of sensitivity analyses to test assumptions may be misunderstood. It could be argued that doctors may feel that the results of economic analyses are relevant only to large cohorts and do not apply to individual patients who by definition have unique circumstances. As discussed by Asch and Hershey (31), cost-effectiveness evaluates the relative costs and benefits of an intervention on a population basis. Conversely, physicians may be more concerned with the potential costs and benefits on an intervention on a given patient. The costs and benefits observed for a single individual might be quite different from those expected on average over a large population. Patients differ in terms of their medical needs and the priorities they place on certain outcomes. For example, an individual patient with epilepsy may place a high premium on avoiding adverse cosmetic side effects, whereas another might value seizure freedom most of all (32). When faced with this diversity of patients' needs, doctors may find it difficult to apply the findings of economic analyses to individual patients. Further, as the physician may be treating a given patient for multiple years, AEDs with the greatest perceived likelihood of resulting in satisfactory treatment and patient satisfaction (rather than those providing acceptable incremental benefits for specified incremental costs) may be selected. Cost-effectiveness generally evaluates costs (and benefits) for longer time periods. Cost-effectiveness analyses may assess the incremental costs and benefits of a new AED over the course of 1 or multiple years, including the potential for reduced hospitalization, surgery, and other expensive medical-resource use at some point in the future. In contrast, physicians are often interested in the optimal treatment for a patient now, one that will lead to satisfactory seizure control as quickly as possible. Institutional factors and the way in which fees and charges are paid may offer little incentive for doctors to consider cost-effectiveness issues when they are making clinical decisions. These factors may lead doctors to believe that “savings in economic studies are anticipated not real”(19). For example, money saved by prescribing a cheaper AED may not be reallocated to different aspects of epilepsy care, such as improved access to an epilepsy nurse specialist or patient information service, and may instead be subsumed into a more general hospital budget, or even the organization's profits. Further, savings in drug costs do not mean actual savings in net long-term medical care costs; use of a less expensive drug may result in increased costs due to increases in other types of medical care use. Finally, the quality of economic studies themselves may be poor. The methods by which economic outcomes are assessed are still being developed (33). There are many clinical situations, such as treatment of the elderly and women of childbearing age, which have not been investigated by any form of economic evaluation. Nevertheless, the number of economic evaluations continues to increase, and understanding of the research methods is likely to continue to increase. In contrast to the uncertain effect that economic information has in the clinical-care context, cost-effectiveness analyses are clearly having an impact through the committee room, where decisions about resource allocation and antiepileptic treatment reimbursement are often made. No study has comprehensively reviewed the role that economic data hve played in decisions about epilepsy resources and program funding. However, several studies have assessed the attitudes of policy decision makers regarding use of economic information. A study in the Netherlands (34) found that all participating health care decision makers had positive attitudes toward economic studies. However, health care regulators and hospital pharmacists had greater knowledge of economic evaluations and used them more often than did physicians. In a study of five U.S. hospital pharmaceutical and therapeutics (P&T) committees, Segal and Pathak (35) reported that impact on hospital costs was the second most important factor in selecting medications for hospital formularies (the first factor was the effects of the potential formulary addition on the quality of drug treatments available in the hospital). Similarly, U.S. managed-care pharmacy directors indicated that cost-effectiveness analyses were the second most important factor in decision making, behind assessment of clinical effectiveness (36). Steiner et al. (37) also reported that economic information, particularly cost-effectiveness analyses, was the main factor in coverage decisions for new medication technologies. In the U.K., health care decision makers were willing to consider higher cost drugs for which better outcomes could be demonstrated (38). Throughout the world, the process by which new drugs are approved and licensed differs, and the role of cost-effectiveness data in this process varies markedly. A number of countries, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have instituted statutory bodies that consider the cost-effectiveness of treatments alongside any clinical benefits that are offered by a drug. In other countries, similar processes of drug evaluation exist, although these are limited to less formal authorities. The role of economic considerations in this process can be considered by reference to oxcarbazepine (OCBZ), which has been licensed in a number of countries for a range of clinical indications similar to those for CBZ, a cheaper drug that has been used in treatment of epilepsy for 30 years. There is evidence to suggest that the OCBZ has similar efficacy to CBZ in terms of seizure control, but that it has a lower incidence of skin rash and fewer cognitive side effects (39). In Australia, OCBZ failed to be approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), which is a statutory government body that considers all new pharmaceuticals before they are included on a nationally approved formulary. The process of approval demands that the pharmaceutical companies provide evidence that new drugs are cost-effective and clinically efficacious. The PBS determined that OCBZ be compared with CBZ in a cost-minimization analysis, and found that the extra cost of OCBZ precluded approval. Drugs that are not approved for the PBS are not reimbursed by the Australian Health Service, and although this does not preclude their being prescribed by the treating physician, they do not attract government subsidy and hence may often prove prohibitively expensive for the patient. A similar system of drug approval operates in Canada. Drugs are licensed for use on clinical grounds, but through a separate process, they also are evaluated by each province in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Thus, in Canada, OCBZ was licensed for use but failed to be approved for government reimbursement. As with Australia, without government reimbursement, many patients are unlikely to be prescribed this drug. In the U.K., the government has recently created a special health authority, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), whose stated aims include the objective of “promoting clinical and cost effectiveness through guidance and audit.” Since its inception, NICE has approved the use of a number of neurologic treatments including β-interferon for multiple sclerosis, riluzole for motor neuron disease, and donepexil (Aricept) for Alzheimer disease. The Authority does not consider all treatments. New technologies are evaluated only if they are thought to result in a significant (a) health benefit, across the whole NHS, if given to all relevant patients; (b) impact on other health-related government policies; and (c) impact on National Health Service (NHS) resources if given to all relevant patients. OCBZ was licensed for use in the NHS without reference to NICE, and neurologists and general practitioners are free to prescribe it to patients for whom it is clinically indicated. Many of the barriers to the widespread use of economic information in decision making in the committee room are similar to those experienced by doctors in the clinical care context. Economic data may not be understood, or may be difficult to apply to certain patient subgroups. Institutional factors and the way in which, for example, budget savings may be transferred between departments may distort the use of economic information within health authorities or organizations. The ethical issues arising from the use of cost-effectiveness data in health policy decisions are also pertinent (40). Theoretically, health may be maximized within a society that has limited financial resources by the strict application of cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit criteria. Although health within such a society might be maximized, distributive equity or “fairness” might not be. Such a society would avoid giving treatments to population groups who benefit least from any given health care intervention. This was seen in the “Oregon Experiment” in the U.S., where the state-sponsored Medicaid health program ranked covered health care services based on a cost–benefit formula (41,42). Equity objections to the program were raised in that certain services to disenfranchised population groups (e.g., handicapped individuals) would not be covered. Clearly, each society must balance its desire to maximize health within available resources against notions of equity and redistributive justice. Nevertheless, such important ethical considerations do not preclude the application of health economic methods to health care, as the ethical debate is best conducted when the economic impact of treatments is known and appreciated by decision makers. Throughout healthcare, the arguments for economic determinism are spreading, and physicians increasingly accept the need to consider the cost as well as the clinical efficacy of the treatments that they prescribe. The degree to which economics has affected decision making in the field of epilepsy is less clear. It is likely that there are two distinct settings in which the cost-effectiveness of treatments and investigations are considered, the clinical care context and the committee room. In the former, despite physicians' changing attitudes toward the importance of cost-effective treatments, significant barriers to the prescription of cost-effective treatments remain. Furthermore, many of these barriers, particularly with respect to the quality of economic evaluation that is offered and ethical dilemmas surrounding the physician's “double agent” role, require detailed analysis. Away from the clinical care context, cost-effectiveness analysis is beginning to take a greater hold, and physicians in the developed countries are likely to find that their autonomy to prescribe treatments considered as “not cost-effective” will be eroded. It is essential that in both cases, the quality of economic research improves and that the ethical implications of the widespread application of economic findings are widely explored. To this end, a number of studies need to be performed evaluating the role of economic information in decision making: Studies are needed to assess the level of knowledge among epilepsy health care providers regarding the medication costs and cost-effectiveness of AEDs as well as the potential for avoiding costs with appropriate AED therapy. Understanding of the meaning of cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life analyses should also be evaluated. The role of costs and cost-effectiveness in AED treatment decisions by physicians needs to be evaluated. This role is likely to differ among physicians of varying medical specialties (e.g., generalists vs. specialists), practice settings, and countries. Studies need to objectively validate the collected information; although it might be politically expedient to indicate that costs and cost-effectiveness are an important factor in making treatment decisions, the actual implementation of these factors in making AED treatment decisions for real patients may be more difficult. A number of studies have indicated that decision makers do use information on costs and cost-effectiveness, but studies are needed to assess the role of these factors specifically for AEDs. Finally, few studies have evaluated factors influencing treatment decisions by epilepsy patients and their families. For example, Gordon et al. (43) evaluated factors influencing the decision by families to discontinue AED therapy for their children with controlled epilepsy (seizure free for ≥3 months). Fisher et al. (44) surveyed people with epilepsy in the U.S.; cost was rated the least important (of five) areas related to seizure medications. However, to our knowledge, no other studies have assessed the role of economic factors in epilepsy-treatment decisions by patients. Additional studies are needed to assess the role of costs, cost-effectiveness, and other outcomes-research information on these treatment choices. These studies will help provide a better understanding of the role of economic in epilepsy-treatment decisions, and the best approaches to produce better and more cost-effective treatment decisions in a variety of health care settings." @default.
W2061505836 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W2061505836 creator A5013598339 @default.
W2061505836 creator A5065305553 @default.
W2061505836 creator A5072861207 @default.
W2061505836 date "2002-06-26" @default.
W2061505836 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
W2061505836 title "Economics in Epilepsy Treatment Choices: Our Certain Fate?" @default.
W2061505836 cites W1732466172 @default.
W2061505836 cites W1971782045 @default.
W2061505836 cites W1978351265 @default.
W2061505836 cites W1995895570 @default.
W2061505836 cites W1998480156 @default.
W2061505836 cites W1998566684 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2006596528 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2013615722 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2014304869 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2020661452 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2031134105 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2032629972 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2033711053 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2037941968 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2038938095 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2042217487 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2065482764 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2071999091 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2077852757 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2087665936 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2092903875 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2103024352 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2114155600 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2127790142 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2128098692 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2148076650 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2324029282 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2328987365 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2409192774 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2414268337 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2754309215 @default.
W2061505836 cites W4255372548 @default.
W2061505836 cites W2048293640 @default.
W2061505836 doi "https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1528-1157.43.s.4.6.x" @default.
W2061505836 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12059999" @default.
W2061505836 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
W2061505836 type Work @default.
W2061505836 sameAs 2061505836 @default.
W2061505836 citedByCount "22" @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362013 @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362014 @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362015 @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362016 @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362018 @default.
W2061505836 countsByYear W20615058362021 @default.
W2061505836 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2061505836 hasAuthorship W2061505836A5013598339 @default.
W2061505836 hasAuthorship W2061505836A5065305553 @default.
W2061505836 hasAuthorship W2061505836A5072861207 @default.
W2061505836 hasBestOaLocation W20615058361 @default.
W2061505836 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
W2061505836 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
W2061505836 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
W2061505836 hasConcept C2778186239 @default.
W2061505836 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2061505836 hasConceptScore W2061505836C118552586 @default.
W2061505836 hasConceptScore W2061505836C15744967 @default.
W2061505836 hasConceptScore W2061505836C169760540 @default.
W2061505836 hasConceptScore W2061505836C2778186239 @default.
W2061505836 hasConceptScore W2061505836C71924100 @default.
W2061505836 hasLocation W20615058361 @default.
W2061505836 hasLocation W20615058362 @default.
W2061505836 hasOpenAccess W2061505836 @default.
W2061505836 hasPrimaryLocation W20615058361 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W1975440733 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2060279210 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2063228636 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2064299691 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2166907382 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2789661527 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W2916001803 @default.
W2061505836 hasRelatedWork W3185675323 @default.
W2061505836 hasVolume "43" @default.
W2061505836 isParatext "false" @default.
W2061505836 isRetracted "false" @default.
W2061505836 magId "2061505836" @default.
W2061505836 workType "article" @default.