Marisa Miraldo

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy

The viability of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) as a stand-alone or temporising option for the management of gonarthrosis is a topic of considerable contention. Despite recent advances in prosthesis design and surgical technique, as well as mounting evidence of long-term survivorship, UKA remains infrequently used, accounting for just 8-15% of all knee arthroplasties. Instead this group is more typically managed using total knee arthroplasty (TKA). For UKA to warrant increased usage the candidacy for UKA must be prevalent, the outcome must be equivalent or superior to that of TKA, and the costs should be comparatively low. Here we address three issues regarding UKA: 1) a prospective assessment of the proportion of knees needing arthroplasty that are candidates for UKA; 2) retrospective outcome measures comparing TKA, UKA and controls; and 3) an estimation of the difference in costs between TKA and UKA from a hospital perspective. We show in a series of 200 knees that candidacy for UKA is widespread; representing 47.6% of knees. Furthermore, we also show for the first time, that not only is UKA functionally superior to TKA (based on Total Knee Questionnaire (TKQ) scores), but scores in medial and lateral UKA knees do not differ significantly from normal, non-operative age- and sex-matched knees (t=1.14 [38], p=0.163; and t=1.16 [38], p=0.255 respectively). Finally, we report that UKA offers a substantial cost saving over TKA ( pound 1761 per knee) indicating that UKA should be considered the primary treatment option for unicompartmental knee arthritis.

Effects of Reference Pricing in Pharmaceutical Markets

This work aims to provide a systematic and updated survey of original scientific studies on the effect of the introduction of reference pricing (RP) policies in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. We searched PubMed, EconLit and Web of Knowledge for articles on RP. We reviewed studies that met the inclusion criteria established in the search strategy. From a total of 468 references, we selected the 35 that met all of the inclusion criteria.Some common themes emerged in the literature. The first was that RP was generally associated with a decrease in the prices of the drugs subject to the policy. In particular, price drops seem to have been experienced in virtually every country that implemented a generic RP (GRP) policy. A GRP policy applies only to products with expired patents and generic competition, and clusters drugs according to chemical equivalence (same form and active compound). More significant price decreases were observed in the sub-markets in which drugs were already facing generic competition prior to RP. Price drops varied widely according to the amount of generic competition and industrial strategies: brand-named drugs originally priced above RP values decreased their prices to a greater extent. A second common theme was that both therapeutic RP (TRP) and GRP have been associated with significant and consistent savings in the first years of application. A third general result is that generic market shares significantly increased whenever the firms producing brand-named drugs did not adopt one of the following strategies: lowering prices to RP values; launching new dosages and/or formulations; or marketing substitute drugs still under patent protection. Finally, concerning TRP, although more evidence is needed, studies based on a large number of patient-level observations showed no association between the RP policy and health outcomes.

Who is more likely to use doctor-rating websites, and why? A cross-sectional study in London

Objectives To explore the extent to which doctor-rating websites are known and used among a sample of respondents from London. To understand the main predictors of what makes people willing to use doctor-rating websites. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting The Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, London, England. Participants 200 individuals from the borough. Main outcome measures The likelihood of being aware of doctor-rating websites and the intention to use doctor-rating websites. Results The use and awareness of doctor-rating websites are still quite limited. White British subjects, as well as respondents with higher income are less likely to use doctor-rating websites. Aspects of the doctor–patient relationship also play a key role in explaining intention to use the websites. The doctor has both a ‘complementary’ and ‘substitute’ role with respect to Internet information. Conclusions Online rating websites can play a major role in supporting patients’ informed decisions on which healthcare providers to seek advice from, thus potentially fostering patients’ choice in healthcare. Subjects who seek and provide feedback on doctor-ranking websites, though, are unlikely to be representative of the overall patients’ pool. In particular, they tend to over-represent opinions from non-White British, medium–low-income patients who are not satisfied with their choice of the healthcare treatments and the level of information provided by their GP. Accounting for differences in the users’ characteristics is important when interpreting results from doctor-rating sites.

Are English treatment centres treating less complex patients

Activity-based funding involves remunerating healthcare providers a fixed price per patient in each payment category. However, no categorisation system can account perfectly for differences in patient complexity. Differences may be systematic if providers routinely attract high-risk patients or engage in patient selection. Such differences may be evident in the English National Health Service (NHS) following the introduction of treatment centres that concentrate on providing a small number of high-volume procedures. We analyse data for more than 3.3 million patients to assess whether the complexity of those treated in hospitals and treatment centres differs within twenty-nine payment categories, defined by Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). We find that patients treated in hospitals were more likely to come from more deprived areas, to have more diagnoses and to undergo significantly more procedures than patients seen by treatment centres, suggesting that hospitals are treating more complex cases. If these observed differences between hospitals and treatment centres drive costs, then payments should be refined to ensure fair reimbursement.

Exploring the responsiveness of public and private hospitals in Lagos, Nigeria

According to the World Health Report 2000, health system responsiveness is proposed as one of the three key objectives of any health system. This multi-domain concept describes how well a health system responds to the expectations of their users concerning the non-health enhancing aspects of care. In this study we aim to compare the levels of responsiveness experienced by users of private and publicly managed hospitals in Nigeria, and through these insights, to propose recommendations on how to improve performance on this measure. This quantitative, cross-sectional study uses a questionnaire that is adapted from two responsiveness surveys designed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Researchers collected responses from 520 respondents from four hospitals in Lagos, Nigeria. Analysis of the data using statistical techniques found that significant differences exist between the performance of public and private hospitals on certain domains of responsiveness, with privately operated hospitals performing better where differences exist. Users of private hospitals also reported a higher level of overall satisfaction. Private hospitals were found to perform particularly better on the domains of dignity, waiting times, and travel times. These findings have implications for the management of public hospitals in focusing their efforts on improving their performance in low scoring domains. Performance in these hospitals can be improved by emphasis on staff training and demand management.

Price adjustment in the hospital sector

We analyse the properties of optimal price adjustment to hospitals when no lump-sum transfers are allowed and when prices differ to reflect observable exogenous differences in costs. We find that: (a) when the marginal benefit from treatment is decreasing and the cost function is the power function, price adjustment for hospitals with higher costs is positive but partial; if the marginal benefit is constant, the price is identical across providers; (b) if the cost function is exponential or it is separable in monetary and non-monetary costs (and linear in monetary costs), price adjustment is positive even when the marginal benefit is constant; (c) higher inequality aversion of the purchaser increases concentration in prices and lowers concentration in quantities; (d) if some dimensions of costs are private information, a higher correlation between the observable and unobservable cost component increases the optimal price for providers whose observable costs are above the average.

Should prospective payments be differentiated for public and private healthcare providers

The English government has encouraged private providers - known as Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs) - to treat publicly funded (NHS) patients. All providers are to be remunerated under a prospective payment system that offers a price per case treated, adjusted by the Market Forces Factor (MFF) to reflect geographical variation in specific input costs. This payment system presupposes that any remaining cost differentials between providers result from inefficiencies. However, the validity of this assumption is unclear. This article describes the constraints that could cause public and private provider costs to differ for reasons outside their control. These constraints may be regulatory in nature, such as taxes and performance management regimens, or relate to the production process, such as input costs, the provision of emergency care, and case mix issues. Most of these exogenous cost differentials can be rectified by adjustments either to the regulatory system or to the payment method. However, differences in capital costs appear less tractable and further investigation into possible solutions is warranted.

In Sickness but Not in Wealth. Field Evidence on Patients’ Risk Preferences in Financial and Health Domains

We present results from a hypothetical framed field experiment assessing whether risk preferences significantly differ across the health and financial domains when they are elicited through the same multiple price list paired-lottery method. We consider a sample of 300 patients attending outpatient clinics in a university hospital in Athens during the Greek financial crisis. Risk preferences in finance were elicited using paired-lottery questions with hypothetical payments. The questions were adapted to the health domain by framing the lotteries as risky treatments in hypothetical health care scenarios. Using maximum likelihood methods, we estimated the degree of risk aversion, allowing for the estimates to be dependent on domain and individual characteristics. The subjects in our sample, who were exposed to both health and financial distress, tended to be less risk averse in the financial domain than in the health domain.

Cost-Effectiveness and Dynamic Efficiency: Does the Solution Lie Within?

The majority of the current systems spread across the world require the value of pharmaceuticals to be demonstrated with an acceptable degree of certainty before a technology is funded. Often involving the notion of cost-effectiveness, one of the key characteristics of such assessments tends to be the consideration of efficiency as a static outcome; with a strong emphasis on current health gains but a disregard for the impact of decision making on the potential health value over time. In this article, we argue that current systems using cost-effectiveness thresholds may provide an incomplete indicator of value. We defend the idea that funding decisions should also be informed by dynamic efficiency considerations and reflect both the current and the future value of achieving a certain level of effectiveness in a specific disease area. We further lay down the foundations for the implementation of such a value assessment framework.

Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

We conduct a framed field experiment among patients and doctors to test whether the two groups have similar risk and time preferences. We elicit risk and time preferences using multiple price list tests and their adaptations to the healthcare context. Risk and time preferences are compared in terms of switching points in the tests and the structurally estimated behavioural parameters. We find that doctors and patients significantly differ in their time preferences: doctors discount future outcomes less heavily than patients. We find no evidence that doctors and patients systematically differ in their risk preferences in the healthcare domain.