IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i4d10.1007_s40258-021-00692-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis

Author

Listed:
  • Edyta Ryczek
  • Susan C. Peirce

    (Cardiff University)

  • Laura Knight

    (Cardiff and Vale University Health Board)

  • Andrew Cleves

    (Cardiff and Vale University Health Board)

  • Andrew Champion

    (Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee)

  • Iolo Doull

    (Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee)

  • Sian Lewis

    (Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee)

Abstract

The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee (WHSSC) is responsible for planning, commissioning and funding specialised healthcare in Wales. Investment in new technologies or services is based on clinical and economic evidence, using a consistent and transparent process. This is accomplished in three stages. The first stage is the preparation of a rapid evidence review. This then informs the development or update of the relevant Commissioning Policy. The final stage is to prioritise the Commissioning Policy recommendations against all other new services and interventions, to inform WHSSC’s annual commissioning intentions. In 2017, a review was conducted of the WHSSC Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Prior to this only high-risk patients were eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The rapid evidence review identified three randomised controlled trials and two economic analyses relevant to the decision problem. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was generally found to be more expensive and more effective than medical management or surgical aortic valve replacement, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios around £10,500–£36,000 for inoperable groups and £17,000–£24,000 in high-risk groups. The rapid evidence review, expert advice and stakeholder feedback informed the revision process of the Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This recommended the addition of patients unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement and the removal of explicit risk scoring. This recommendation was subject to the prioritisation process (carried out annually). The updated transcatheter aortic valve implantation recommendation was ranked second out of 23 technologies and services competing for additional WHSSC funding. The WHSSC Integrated Commissioning Plan for specialised services in Wales (2019) therefore included funding to support the new criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Edyta Ryczek & Susan C. Peirce & Laura Knight & Andrew Cleves & Andrew Champion & Iolo Doull & Sian Lewis, 2022. "A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 487-499, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00692-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00692-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00692-y
    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/s40258-021-00692-y?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.

    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:20:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00692-y. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.