IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i7p842-856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the Economic Impact of Interventions for Older Populations with Multimorbidity: A Method of Linking Multiple Single-Disease Models

Author

Listed:
  • Ji-Hee Youn

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, the University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK)

  • Matt D. Stevenson

    (School of Health and Related Research, the University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, UK)

  • Praveen Thokala

    (School of Health and Related Research, the University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, UK)

  • Katherine Payne

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, the University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK)

  • Maria Goddard

    (Centre for Health Economics, the University of York, Heslington, York, UK)

Abstract

Introduction. Individuals from older populations tend to have more than 1 health condition (multimorbidity). Current approaches to produce economic evidence for clinical guidelines using decision-analytic models typically use a single-disease approach, which may not appropriately reflect the competing risks within a population with multimorbidity. This study aims to demonstrate a proof-of-concept method of modeling multiple conditions in a single decision-analytic model to estimate the impact of multimorbidity on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods. Multiple conditions were modeled within a single decision-analytic model by linking multiple single-disease models. Individual discrete event simulation models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preventative interventions for a case study assuming a UK National Health Service perspective. The case study used 3 diseases (heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and osteoporosis) that were combined within a single linked model. The linked model, with and without correlations between diseases incorporated, simulated the general population aged 45 years and older to compare results in terms of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results. The estimated incremental costs and QALYs for health care interventions differed when 3 diseases were modeled simultaneously (£840; 0.234 QALYs) compared with aggregated results from 3 single-disease models (£408; 0.280QALYs). With correlations between diseases additionally incorporated, both absolute and incremental costs and QALY estimates changed in different directions, suggesting that the inclusion of correlations can alter model results. Discussion. Linking multiple single-disease models provides a methodological option for decision analysts who undertake research on populations with multimorbidity. It also has potential for wider applications in informing decisions on commissioning of health care services and long-term priority setting across diseases and health care programs through providing potentially more accurate estimations of the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ji-Hee Youn & Matt D. Stevenson & Praveen Thokala & Katherine Payne & Maria Goddard, 2019. "Modeling the Economic Impact of Interventions for Older Populations with Multimorbidity: A Method of Linking Multiple Single-Disease Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 842-856, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:842-856
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19868987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19868987
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19868987?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. D. Stevenson & J. Oakley & J. B. Chilcott, 2004. "Gaussian Process Modeling in Conjunction with Individual Patient Simulation Modeling: A Case Study Describing the Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for the Treatment of Established Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 89-100, January.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    3. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier & Tony O'Hagan, 2005. "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 339-347, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Marta O. 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.
    4. Isaac Corro Ramos & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken & Maiwenn J. Al, 2013. "The Role of Value-of-Information Analysis in a Health Care Research Priority Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 472-489, May.
    5. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    6. Sun-Young Kim & Louise B. Russell & Anushua Sinha, 2015. "Handling Parameter Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Models Simply and Responsibly," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 567-569, July.
    7. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.
    8. Anthony O'Hagan & Matt Stevenson & Jason Madan, 2007. "Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for patient level simulation models: efficient estimation of mean and variance using ANOVA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1009-1023, October.
    9. Zoë Pieters & Mark Strong & Virginia E. Pitzer & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke, 2020. "A Computationally Efficient Method for Probabilistic Parameter Threshold Analysis for Health Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 669-679, July.
    10. Xuanqian Xie & Alexis K. Schaink & Sichen Liu & Myra Wang & Andrei Volodin, 2023. "Understanding bias in probabilistic analysis in model-based health economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 307-319, March.
    11. Pepijn Vemer & Lucas M. A. Goossens & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2014. "Not Simply More of the Same," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1048-1058, November.
    12. Tiago M. de Carvalho & Eveline A. M. Heijnsdijk & Luc Coffeng & Harry J. de Koning, 2019. "Evaluating Parameter Uncertainty in a Simulation Model of Cancer Using Emulators," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 405-413, May.
    13. Joseph F. Levy & Patrick D. Meek & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2015. "US-Based Drug Cost Parameter Estimation for Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 622-632, July.
    14. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "A Review of Methods for Analysis of the Expected Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(7), pages 747-758, October.
    15. Joke Bilcke & Philippe Beutels & Marc Brisson & Mark Jit, 2011. "Accounting for Methodological, Structural, and Parameter Uncertainty in Decision-Analytic Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 675-692, July.
    16. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Marianne Klemp, 2014. "Economic Evaluation of Warfarin, Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban, and Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 601-612, June.
    17. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.
    18. Devin Incerti & Jeffrey R. Curtis & Jason Shafrin & Darius N. Lakdawalla & Jeroen P. Jansen, 2019. "A Flexible Open-Source Decision Model for Value Assessment of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 829-843, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Hawre J. Jalal, 2016. "Some Health States Are Better Than Others," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 927-940, November.

    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:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:842-856. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.