IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i4d10.1007_s40258-024-00875-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Franklin

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • Sebastian Hinde

    (University of York)

  • Rachael Maree Hunter

    (University College London)

  • Gerry Richardson

    (University of York)

  • William Whittaker

    (Institute for Health Policy and Organisation)

Abstract

Commissioning describes the process of contracting appropriate care services to address pre-identified needs through pre-agreed payment structures. Outcomes-based commissioning (i.e., paying services for pre-agreed outcomes) shares a common goal with economic evaluation: achieving value for money for relevant outcomes (e.g., health) achieved from a finite budget. We describe considerations and challenges as to the practical role of relevant outcomes for evaluation and commissioning, seeking to bridge a gap between economic evaluation evidence and care commissioning. We describe conceptual (e.g., what are ‘relevant’ outcomes) alongside practical considerations (e.g., quantifying and using relevant endpoint or surrogate outcomes) and pertinent issues when linking outcomes to commissioning-based payment mechanisms, using England as a case study. Economic evaluation often focuses on a single endpoint health-focused maximand, e.g., quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), whereas commissioning often focuses on activity-based surrogate outcomes (e.g., health monitoring), as easier-to-measure key performance indicators that are more acceptable (e.g., by clinicians) and amenable to being linked with payment structures. However, payments linked to endpoint and/or surrogate outcomes can lead to market inefficiencies; for example, when surrogates do not have the intended causal effect on endpoint outcomes or when service activity focuses on only people who can achieve prespecified payment-linked outcomes. Accounting for and explaining direct links from commissioners’ payment structures to surrogate and then endpoint economic outcomes is a vital step to bridging a gap between economic evaluation approaches and commissioning. Decision-analytic models could aid this but they must be designed to account for relevant surrogate and endpoint outcomes, the payments assigned to such outcomes, and their interaction with the system commissioners purport to influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Franklin & Sebastian Hinde & Rachael Maree Hunter & Gerry Richardson & William Whittaker, 2024. "Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 435-445, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00875-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00875-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00875-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00875-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shiyong Liu & Hong Xue & Yan Li & Judy Xu & Youfa Wang, 2018. "Investigating the Diffusion of Agent†based Modelling and System Dynamics Modelling in Population Health and Healthcare Research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 203-215, March.
    2. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer & Anthony J Culyer, 2015. "Causes For Concern: Is Nice Failing To Uphold Its Responsibilities To All Nhs Patients?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-7, January.
    3. Sebastian Hinde & Dan Howdon & James Lomas & Matthew Franklin, 2022. "Health Inequalities: To What Extent are Decision-Makers and Economic Evaluations on the Same Page? An English Case Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 793-802, November.
    4. Diogo L. L. Leao & Henricus-Paul Cremers & Dennis Veghel & Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot, 2023. "The Impact of Value-Based Payment Models for Networks of Care and Transmural Care: A Systematic Literature Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 441-466, May.
    5. Frew, Emma & Breheny, Katie, 2020. "Health economics methods for public health resource allocation: a qualitative interview study of decision makers from an English local authority," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 128-140, January.
    6. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    7. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    8. Emma Frew & Katie Breheny, 2019. "Methods for public health economic evaluation: A Delphi survey of decision makers in English and Welsh local government," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1052-1063, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    2. Gemma E. Shields & Mark Wilberforce & Paul Clarkson & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2022. "Factors Limiting Subgroup Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Call for Transparency," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 149-156, February.
    3. Koen Degeling & Maarten J. IJzerman & Mariel S. Lavieri & Mark Strong & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2020. "Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 348-363, April.
    4. Elamin Elbasha & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2016. "Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 13-22, January.
    5. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    6. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    7. Elamin H. Elbasha & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2016. "Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 13-22, January.
    8. J. Jaime Caro & Andrew H. Briggs & Uwe Siebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2012. "Modeling Good Research Practices—Overview," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 667-677, September.
    9. G. Ramos & Antoinette Asselt & Sandra Kuiper & Johan Severens & Tanja Maas & Edward Dompeling & J. Knottnerus & Onno Schayck, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention of paediatric asthma: a decision-analytic model," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 869-883, November.
    10. Emma McManus & Tracey Sach & Nick Levell, 2018. "The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 51-66, January.
    11. John Graves & Shawn Garbett & Zilu Zhou & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Josh Peterson, 2021. "Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 453-464, May.
    12. Kevin Marsh & Ceri Phillips & Richard Fordham & Evelina Bertranou & Janine Hale, 2012. "Estimating cost-effectiveness in public health: a summary of modelling and valuation methods," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, December.
    13. Kristian Bolin, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Smoking-Cessation Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(7), pages 551-564, July.
    14. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2020. "Modelling the impact of physical activity on public health: A review and critique," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1155-1164.
    15. Marta Soares & Luísa Canto e Castro, 2012. "Continuous Time Simulation and Discretized Models for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1101-1117, December.
    16. Christopher H. Jackson & Laura Bojke & Simon G. Thompson & Karl Claxton & Linda D. Sharples, 2011. "A Framework for Addressing Structural Uncertainty in Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 662-674, July.
    17. Gemma E. Shields & Paul Clarkson & Ash Bullement & Warren Stevens & Mark Wilberforce & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2024. "Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(7), pages 737-749, July.
    18. Ashley Layer & Emma McManus & N. J. Levell, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Venous Leg Ulcers," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 211-222, June.
    19. Sun-Young Kim & Sue Goldie, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 191-215, March.
    20. Marta O Soares & L Canto e Castro, 2010. "Simulation or cohort models? Continuous time simulation and discretized Markov models to estimate cost-effectiveness," Working Papers 056cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00875-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.