How to Invest in Getting Cost-effective Technologies into Practice? A Framework for Value of Implementation Analysis Applied to Novel Oral Anticoagulants

Rita Faria, Simon Walker, Sophie Whyte, Simon Dixon, Stephen Palmer and Mark Sculpher

Medical Decision Making, 2017, vol. 37, issue 2, 148-161

Abstract: Cost-effective interventions are often implemented slowly and suboptimally in clinical practice. In such situations, a range of implementation activities may be considered to increase uptake. A framework is proposed to use cost-effectiveness analysis to inform decisions on how best to invest in implementation activities. This framework addresses 2 key issues: 1) how to account for changes in utilization in the future in the absence of implementation activities; and 2) how to prioritize implementation efforts between subgroups. A case study demonstrates the framework’s application: novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the prevention of stroke in the National Health Service in England and Wales. The results suggest that there is value in additional implementation activities to improve uptake of NOACs, particularly in targeting patients with average or poor warfarin control. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, additional investment in an educational activity that increases the utilization of NOACs by 5% in all patients currently taking warfarin generates an additional 254 QALYs, compared with 973 QALYs in the subgroup with average to poor warfarin control. However, greater value could be achieved with higher uptake of anticoagulation more generally: switching 5% of patients who are potentially eligible for anticoagulation but are currently receiving no treatment or are using aspirin would generate an additional 4990 QALYs. This work can help health services make decisions on investment at different points of the care pathway or across disease areas in a manner consistent with the value assessment of new interventions.

Keywords: resource allocation; cost utility analysis; efficiency; clinical practice guidelines; technology assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16645577 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:2:p:148-161

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16645577

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().