IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i1d10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Author

Listed:
  • Constanza Vargas

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rebecca Addo

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Milena Lewandowska

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Philip Haywood

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Richard Abreu Lourenco

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Stephen Goodall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Introduction Funding decisions for many health technologies occur without undergoing health technology assessment (HTA), in particular, without assessment of cost effectiveness (CE). Immunoglobulins in Australia are an interesting case study because they have been used for a long time for various rare disorders and their price is publicly available. Undertaking an HTA enables us to assess CE for an intervention for which there is limited clinical and economic evidence. This study presents a post-market review to assess the CE of immunoglobulins for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) compared with best supportive care. Methods A Markov model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Input sources included randomised controlled trials, single-arm studies, the Australian clinical criteria for MMN, clinical guidelines, previous Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) reports and inputs from clinical experts. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the CE results. Results The cost per patient of treating MMN with immunoglobulin was AU$275,853 versus AU$26,191when no treatment was provided, with accrued QALYs of 6.83 versus 6.04, respectively. The latter translated into a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$317,552/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the utility weights and the price of immunoglobulins. MSAC advised to continue funding of immunoglobulins on the grounds of efficacy, despite the high and uncertain ICER. Conclusions Beyond the ICER framework, other factors were acknowledged, including the high clinical need in a patient population for which there are no other active treatments available. This case study highlights the challenges of conducting HTA for already funded interventions, and the efficiency trade-offs required to fund effective high-cost therapies in rare conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Constanza Vargas & Rebecca Addo & Milena Lewandowska & Philip Haywood & Richard Abreu Lourenco & Stephen Goodall, 2024. "Use of Health Technology Assessment for the Continued Funding of Health Technologies: The Case of Immunoglobulins for the Management of Multifocal Motor Neuropathy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 73-84, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00853-1
    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/s40258-023-00853-1?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:22:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00853-1. 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.