Purpose: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis in which we compared a preoperative [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT-based one-stop-shop imaging strategy with current best practice in which [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT is only recommended after negative or inconclusive [^99mTc]Tc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT for patients suffering from primary hyperparathyroidism. We investigated whether the one-stop-shop strategy performs as well as current best practice but at lower costs. Methods: We developed a cohort-level state transition model to evaluate both imaging strategies respecting an intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitored treatment setting as well as a traditional treatment setting. The model reflects patients’ hospital journeys after biochemically diagnosed primary hyperparathyroidism. A cycle length of twelve months and a lifetime horizon were used. We conducted probabilistic analyses simulating 50,000 cohorts to assess joint parameter uncertainty. The incremental net monetary benefit and cost for each quality-adjusted life year were estimated. Furthermore, threshold analyses regarding the tariff of [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT and the sensitivity of [^99mTc]Tc-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile SPECT/CT were performed. Results: The simulated long-term health effects and costs were similar for both imaging strategies. Accordingly, there was no incremental net monetary benefit and the one-stop-shop strategy did not result in lower costs. These results applied to both treatment settings. The threshold analysis indicated that a tariff of €885 for [¹⁸F]Fluorocholine PET/CT was required to be cost-effective compared to current best practice. Conclusion: Both preoperative imaging strategies can be used interchangeably. Daily clinical practice grounds such as available local resources and patient preferences should inform policy-making on whether a hospital should implement the one-stop-shop imaging strategy.

@en

New health technologies often yield health benefits, but often at a high cost. In Australia, the processes for public reimbursement of high-cost pharmaceuticals and medical devices are different, potentially resulting in inequity in support for new therapies. We explore how reimbursement is different for medical devices compared with pharmaceuticals, including whether higher cost-effectiveness thresholds are accepted for pharmaceuticals. A literature review identified the challenges of economic evaluations for medical devices compared with pharmaceuticals. We used the ventricular assist device as a case study to highlight specific features of medical device funding in Australia. We used existing guidelines to evaluate whether ventricular assist devices would fulfil the requirements for the “Life-Saving Drugs Program”, which is usually reserved for expensive life–extending pharmaceutical treatments of serious and rare medical conditions. The challenges in conducting economic evaluations of medical devices include limited data to support effectiveness, device-operator interaction (surgical experience) and incremental innovations (miniaturisation). However, whilst high-cost pharmaceuticals may be funded by a single source (federal government), the funding of high-cost devices is complex and may be funded via a combination of federal, state and private health insurance. Based on the Life-Saving Drugs Program criteria, we found that ventricular assist devices could be funded by a similar mechanism to that which funds high-cost life-extending pharmaceuticals. This article highlights the complexities of medical device reimbursement. Whilst differences in available evidence affect the evaluation process, differences in funding methods contribute to inequitable reimbursement decisions between medical devices and pharmaceuticals.@en

Background: In 2009, mandatory folic acid fortification of bread-making flour was introduced in Australia to reduce the birth prevalence of preventable neural tube defects (NTDs) such as spina bifida. Before the introduction of the policy, modelling predicted a reduction of 14–49 NTDs each year. Objective: Using real-world data, this study provides the first ex-post evaluation of the cost effectiveness of mandatory folic acid fortification of bread-making flour in Australia. Methods: We developed a decision tree model to compare different fortification strategies and used registry data to quantify the change in NTD rates due to the policy. We adopted a societal perspective that included costs to industry and government as well as healthcare and broader societal costs. Results: We found 32 fewer NTDs per year in the post-mandatory folic acid fortification period. Mandatory folic acid fortification improved health outcomes and was highly cost effective because of the low intervention cost. The policy demonstrated improved equity in outcomes, particularly in birth prevalence of NTDs in births from teenage and indigenous mothers. Conclusions: This study calculated the value of mandatory folic acid fortification using real-world registry data and demonstrated that the attained benefit was comparable to the modelled expected benefits. Mandatory folic acid fortification (in addition to policies including advice on supplementation and education) improved equity in certain populations and was effective and highly cost effective for the Australian population.@en