Development of a web-based tool for the assessment of health and economic outcomes of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA)

BackgroundThe European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) is a European Commission led policy initiative to address the challenges of demographic change in Europe. For monitoring the health and economic impact of the social and technological innovations carried out by more than 500 stakeholder's groups ('commitments') participating in the EIP on AHA, a generic and flexible web-based monitoring and assessment tool is currently being developed.AimThis paper describes the approach for developing and implementing this web-based tool, its main characteristics and capability to provide specific outcomes that are of value to the developers of an intervention, as well as a series of case studies planned before wider rollout.MethodsThe tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across the diverse set of EIP on AHA commitments in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as well as health and social care utilisation. A highly adaptable Markov model with initially three mutually exclusive health states ('baseline health', 'deteriorated health' and 'death') provides the basis for the tool which draws from an extensive database of epidemiological, economic and effectiveness data; and also allows further customisation through remote data entry enabling more accurate and context specific estimation of intervention impact. Both probabilistic sensitivity analysis and deterministic scenario analysis allow assessing the impact of parameter uncertainty on intervention outcomes. A set of case studies, ranging from the pre-market assessment of early healthcare technologies to the retrospective analysis of established care pathways, will be carried out before public rollout, which is envisaged end 2015.ConclusionMonitoring the activities carried out within the EIP on AHA requires an approach that is both flexible and consistent in the way health and economic impact is estimated across interventions and commitments. The added value for users of the MAFEIP-tool is its ability to provide an early assessment of the likelihood that interventions in their current design will achieve the anticipated impact, and also to identify what drives interventions' effectiveness or efficiency to guide further design, development or evaluation.

[1]  J. Lord,et al.  Mind the Gap! A Multilevel Analysis of Factors Related to Variation in Published Cost-Effectiveness Estimates within and between Countries , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  Ron Goeree,et al.  Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results from one geographic area for another , 2007, Current medical research and opinion.

[3]  S. Sullivan,et al.  Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  S. Ramsey,et al.  Improving early cycle economic evaluation of diagnostic technologies , 2014, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[5]  Laura Vallejo-Torres,et al.  Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: A Bayesian approach , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[6]  Mark Nuijten,et al.  Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  Lotte Steuten,et al.  Transferability of economic evaluations of medical technologies: a new technology for orthopedic surgery , 2008, Expert review of medical devices.

[8]  J. Ware,et al.  A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. , 1996, Medical care.

[9]  Aki Tsuchiya,et al.  A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures , 2010, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[10]  Fabienne Abadie,et al.  Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) First update of the process indicators , 2014 .

[11]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[12]  R. Eldessouki,et al.  Health Care System Information Sharing: A Step Toward Better Health Globally. , 2012, Value in health regional issues.

[13]  B. O'brien,et al.  Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Frankenstein's monster or vampire of trials? , 1996, Medical care.

[14]  D. Owens,et al.  State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--3. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  H. Sintonen The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[16]  S. P. Morgan,et al.  Engaging with economic evaluation methods: insights from small and medium enterprises in the UK medical devices industry after training workshops , 2012, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[17]  Maria Lluch,et al.  Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) – Interim Report on the defined process indicators , 2013 .

[18]  John Nixon,et al.  Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? , 2005, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[19]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[20]  A. Haycox,et al.  Customising an International Disease Management Model to the Needs of Individual Countries , 2012, PharmacoEconomics (Auckland).

[21]  Christian Boehler,et al.  Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) - Conceptual description of the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP on AHA , 2015 .

[22]  Bonny Parkinson,et al.  Integrating Health Economics Into the Product Development Cycle , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  Frank de Charro,et al.  The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective , 2003, Springer Netherlands.

[24]  M. Drummond Comparing Cost-Effectiveness Across Countries , 1994, PharmacoEconomics.

[25]  Kathryn Coyle,et al.  EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control , 2014, BMJ Open.

[26]  J. Ware SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .

[27]  D. Feeny,et al.  Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[28]  A H Briggs,et al.  Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[29]  Maria Lluch,et al.  Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems Phase 2 (SIMPHS 2). Evidence consolidation - Report on best practices and key drivers of success , 2012 .

[30]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access , 2011, Applied health economics and health policy.

[31]  F. Pang,et al.  Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[32]  Helen Dakin,et al.  Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database , 2013, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[33]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation , 2006 .

[34]  F. Abadie,et al.  Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) , 2013 .

[35]  S P McKenna,et al.  The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. , 1981, Social science & medicine. Part A, Medical sociology.

[36]  Donna Rowen,et al.  Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[37]  John Mullahy,et al.  Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis , 1998 .

[38]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[39]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[40]  David Moher,et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.