A novel set of Austrian reference unit costs for comprehensive societal perspectives consistent with latest European costing methods for economic evaluations

Berger, Michael; Mayer, Susanne; Simon, Judit

doi:10.1007/s00508-022-02128-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, national and international researchers may prefer to resort to methodologically harmonized, societal reference unit costs (RUCs) altogether, as covered in the PECUNIA RUC Compendium [42], available since July 2021. The multi-sectoral, multi-country PECUNIA RUC Compendium contains RUCs for a core set of resource use items in the health, social care, education, (criminal) justice and employment sector as well as the patient, family and informal care domain from six European countries, including Austria [43,44]. These RUCs were also externally validated, which is another advantage of the PECUNIA RUCs over, for example, non-validated unit costs with potentially uncertain reliability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?

Mayer

Łaszewska

Simon

2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-informed healthcare decision-making relies on high quality data inputs, including robust unit costs, which in many countries are not readily available. The objective of the Department of Health Economics’ Unit Cost Online Database, developed based on systematic reviews of Austrian costing studies, is to make conducting economic evaluations from healthcare and societal perspectives more feasible with publicly available unit cost information in Austria. This article aims to describe trends in unit cost data sources and reporting using this comprehensive database as a case study to encourage relevant national and international methodological discussions. Database analysis and synthesis included publication/study characteristics and costing reporting details in line with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) with the year of the database launch as the cut-off point to assess how the methods have developed over time. Forty-two full economic evaluations and 278 unit costs were analyzed (2004–2016: 34 studies/232 unit costs, 2017–2022: 8 studies/46 unit costs). Although the reporting quality of costing details including the study perspective, unit cost sources and years has improved since 2017, the unit cost estimates and sources remained heterogeneous in Austria. While methodologically standardized national-level unit costs would be the gold standard, a systematically collated list of unit costs is a first step towards supporting health economic evaluations nationally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?

Mayer

Łaszewska

Simon

2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Development of a New Approach for the Harmonized Multi-Sectoral and Multi-Country Cost Valuation of Services: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates

Mayer,

Berger,

Perić

et al. 2024

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Increasing healthcare costs require evidence-based resource use allocation for which assessing costs rigorously and comparably is crucial. Harmonized cross-country costing methods for evaluating interventions from a societal perspective are lacking. This study presents the development process and content of the service costing templates developed as part of the European project PECUNIA. Methods The six developmental steps towards technological readiness of the templates included (1) a common conceptual costing framework and review of methodological costing issues, (2) harmonization strategy formulation, (3) proof-of-concept with expert feedback, (4) piloting, (5) validation, and (6) demonstration in six European countries. Results The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates for service costing are three new self-completion tools to be used with secondary or primary data for top-down micro-costing or top-down gross-costing approaches. Complementary data collection and unit cost aggregation/weighting templates are available. The applications leading to the final versions including (4) piloting through calculation of 15-unit costs, (5) validation within a Health Technology Assessment framework, and (6) RUC calculations mostly based on secondary data demonstrated the templates’ general feasibility, with feedback for improved usability incorporated and a supplementary user guide developed. Conclusion The validated PECUNIA RUC Templates for multi-sectoral and multi-country service costing allow for harmonized RUC development while incorporating flexibility and transparency in the choice of costing approaches, data sources and magnitude of remaining heterogeneity. The templates are expected to significantly improve the quality, comparability and availability of unit costs for economic evaluations, and promote the transferability of service cost information across Europe.

show abstract

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer with Volume Computed Tomography in Austria? A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study

ten Berge,

Ramaker,

Piazza

et al. 2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in Austria. An existing decision tree with an integrated Markov model was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LCS versus no screening from a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A simulation was conducted to model annual LCS for an asymptomatic high-risk population cohort aged 50–74 with a smoking history using the Dutch–Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Study (NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker ScreeningsONderzoek, NELSON) screening outcomes. The principal measure utilized to assess cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were employed to determine uncertainties surrounding the key model inputs. At an uptake rate of 50%, 300,277 eligible individuals would participate in the LCS program, yielding 56,122 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 84,049 life years gained compared to no screening, with an ICER of EUR 24,627 per QALY gained or EUR 16,444 per life-year saved. Additionally, LCS led to the detection of 25,893 additional early-stage lung cancers and averted 11,906 premature lung cancer deaths. It was estimated that LCS would incur EUR 945 million additional screening costs and EUR 386 million additional treatment costs. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. Implementation of annual LCS with LDCT for a high-risk population, using the NELSON screening outcomes, is cost-effective in Austria, at a threshold of EUR 50,000 per QALY.

show abstract

A novel set of Austrian reference unit costs for comprehensive societal perspectives consistent with latest European costing methods for economic evaluations

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?

Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?

The Development of a New Approach for the Harmonized Multi-Sectoral and Multi-Country Cost Valuation of Services: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer with Volume Computed Tomography in Austria? A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About