Frontiers in global women's health · 2023
Does in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment provide good value for money? A cost-benefit analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keller Elena, Botha Willings, Chambers Georgina M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Using traditional health technology assessment (HTA) outcome metrics, such as quality-adjusted life-years, to assess fertility treatments raises considerable methodological challenges because the objective of fertility treatments is to create new life rather than extend, save, or improve health-related quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a novel cost-benefit framework to assess value for money of publicly funded IVF treatment; to determine the number of cost-beneficial treatment cycles for women of different ages; and to perform an incremental cost-benefit analysis from a taxpayer perspective.
METHODS: We developed a Markov model to determine the net monetary benefit (NMB) of IVF treatment by female age and number of cycles performed. IVF treatment outcomes were monetized using taxpayers' willingness-to-pay values derived from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Using the current funding environment as the comparator, we performed an incremental analysis of only funding cost-beneficial cycles. Similar outputs to cost-effectiveness analyses were generated, including net-benefit acceptability curves and cost-benefit planes. We created an interactive online app to provide a detailed and transparent presentation of the results.
RESULTS: The results suggest that at least five publicly funded IVF cycles are cost-beneficial in women aged <42 years. Cost-benefit planes suggest a strong taxpayer preference for restricting funding to cost-beneficial cycles over current funding arrangements in Australia from an economic perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: The provision of fertility treatment is valued highly by taxpayers. This novel cost-benefit method overcomes several challenges of conventional cost-effectiveness methods and provides an exemplar for incorporating DCE results into HTA. The results offer new evidence to inform discussions about treatment funding arrangements.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a novel cost-benefit framework to assess value for money of publicly funded IVF treatment; to determine the number of cost-beneficial treatment cycles for women of different ages; and to perform an incremental cost-benefit analysis from a taxpayer perspective.
METHODS: We developed a Markov model to determine the net monetary benefit (NMB) of IVF treatment by female age and number of cycles performed. IVF treatment outcomes were monetized using taxpayers' willingness-to-pay values derived from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Using the current funding environment as the comparator, we performed an incremental analysis of only funding cost-beneficial cycles. Similar outputs to cost-effectiveness analyses were generated, including net-benefit acceptability curves and cost-benefit planes. We created an interactive online app to provide a detailed and transparent presentation of the results.
RESULTS: The results suggest that at least five publicly funded IVF cycles are cost-beneficial in women aged <42 years. Cost-benefit planes suggest a strong taxpayer preference for restricting funding to cost-beneficial cycles over current funding arrangements in Australia from an economic perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: The provision of fertility treatment is valued highly by taxpayers. This novel cost-benefit method overcomes several challenges of conventional cost-effectiveness methods and provides an exemplar for incorporating DCE results into HTA. The results offer new evidence to inform discussions about treatment funding arrangements.