IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v16y2015i4p437-450.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Makai

    ()

  • Willemijn Looman
  • Eddy Adang
  • René Melis
  • Elly Stolk
  • Isabelle Fabbricotti

Abstract

Economic evaluations likely undervalue the benefits of interventions in populations receiving both health and social services, such as frail elderly, by measuring only health-related quality of life. For this reason, alternative preference-based instruments have been developed for economic evaluations in the elderly, such as the ICECAP-O. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness using a short run time frame for an integrated care model for frail elderly, and (2) to investigate whether using a broader measure of (capability) wellbeing in an economic evaluation leads to a different outcome in terms of cost-effectiveness. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses on costs and outcomes separately. We also performed incremental net monetary benefit regressions using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D. In terms of QALYs as measured with the EQ-5D and the ICECAP-O, there were small and insignificant differences between the instruments, due to negligible effect size. Therefore, widespread implementation of the Walcheren integrated care model would be premature based on these results. All results suggest that, using the ICECAP-O, the intervention has a higher probability of cost-effectiveness than with the EQ-5D at the same level of WTP. In case an intervention’s health and wellbeing effects are not significant, as in this study, using the ICECAP-O will not lead to a false claim of cost-effectiveness of the intervention. On the other hand, if differences in capability QALYs are meaningful and significant, the ICECAP-O may have the potential to measure broader outcomes and be more sensitive to differences between intervention and comparators. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:16:y:2015:i:4:p:437-450
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0583-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-014-0583-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    2. L. Couzner & J. Ratcliffe & L. Lester & T. Flynn & M. Crotty, 2013. "Measuring and valuing quality of life for public health research: application of the ICECAP-O capability index in the Australian general population," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(3), pages 367-376, June.
    3. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    4. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    5. Forder, Julien E. & Caiels, James, 2011. "Measuring the outcomes of long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(12), pages 1766-1774.
    6. Grewal, Ini & Lewis, Jane & Flynn, Terry & Brown, Jackie & Bond, John & Coast, Joanna, 2006. "Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1891-1901, April.
    7. Richard Cookson, 2005. "QALYs and the capability approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 817-829, August.
    8. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & Edmond S.‐W. Ng & James Carpenter & Simon G. Thompson, 2012. "Methods For Covariate Adjustment In Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis That Use Cluster Randomised Trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(9), pages 1101-1118, September.
    9. Catherine Henderson & Martin Knapp & José-Luis Fernández & Jennifer Beecham & Shashivadan P Hirani & Martin Cartwright & Lorna Rixon & Michelle Beynon & Anne Rogers & Peter Bower & Helen Doll & Ray Fi, 2013. "Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised contr," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56772, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    11. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    12. Richard M. Nixon & Simon G. Thompson, 2005. "Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between‐centre differences into cost‐effectiveness evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(12), pages 1217-1229, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    3. Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Joanna Coast, 2015. "The Relative Impacts of Disease on Health Status and Capability Wellbeing: A Multi-Country Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.

    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:eujhec:v:16:y:2015:i:4:p:437-450. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.