Evaluation of the reference value of the incremental parameter "cost-effectiveness" for Russian healthcare system

Introduction. Presently, the willingness-to-pay threshold (cost-effectiveness threshold, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is used as one of the decision-making criteria for reimbursement in some foreign countries with a developed system of healthcare technologies evaluation (HTE). However, in Russia, the willingness-to-pay threshold (WPT) is undetermined, which complicates the evaluation of clinical-economical effectiveness of medical technologies, including medicines.

Aim. The study aimed to calculate WPT for the Russian healthcare system using the available foreign experience.

Materials and Methods. WPT was calculated with the following methods: the method proposed by the WHO, hemodialysis cost-effectiveness standard, case-based reasoning (CBR), and the evaluation of the shadow cost of the budget.

Results. WPT was calculated for the Russian healthcare system using four different methods of calculation. According to the method proposed by the WHO, WPT was 2,235,201.60 Rub for DALY in the RF; according to the hemodialysis cost-effectiveness standard, it was 1,748,623.36 Rub for QALY; according to the method of the evaluation of the shadow cost of the budget, it was 313,878.21 Rub for DALY and 365,060.31 Rub for QALY; and according to the method of the case-based reasoning, it was 7,494,944.00 Rub for QALY.

Conclusion. The study results showed that the optimal WPT values for the Russian healthcare system were those obtained by the method of the WHO (2,235,201.60 Rub). The authors propose to use this value as one of the decision-making criteria for the reimbursement of medical technologies, including medicinal drugs.

1. Methodical recommendations for the comparative clinical and economic assessment of the medicinal product. Moscow. 2018; 46 с. (in Russ).

2. Rutigliano M.J. Cost effectiveness analysis: a review. Neurosurgery. 1995; 37 (3): 436-43; Discussion 43-4.

3. Siegel J.E., Torrance G.W., Russell L.B., Luce B.R., Weinstein M.C., Gold M.R. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997; 11 (2): 159-68.

4. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. KCE reports, 2008; 86 p.

5. Bezdenezhnykh T.P., Musina N.Z., Fedyaeva V.K., Tepcova T.S., Le-meshko V.A., Omelyanovsky V.V. International experience in determining the cost-effectiveness thresholds. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2018;11(4):73-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.4.073-080.

6. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001. 210 p. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42435/1/924154550X.pdf. Accessed: 14.07.2020.

7. Bertram M. Y. et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2016; 94 (12): 925-930.

8. Strokov A. G. et al. Treatment of patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD 5) by hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration. Clinical guidelines. Nephrology. 2017; 21 (3): 92-111 (in Russ).

9. Rybakova O.B., Denisov A. Yu., Shilo V. Yu. Hemodiafiltration in the treatment of end-stage renal failure. Nephrology and dialysis. 2001; 3 (4): 22-25 (in Russ).

10. Grosse S.D. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2008; 8 (2): 165-178.

11. Hirth R.A., Chernew M.E., Miller E. et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep; 20 (3): 332-42.

12. Salonen T. Economic evaluation of renal replacement therapies. Tampere University Press. 2016. 210 p.

13. Spiridonov V.N. Borisov Yu.A., Lebedeva E.B. etc. Years and life (as an objective reality) on regular hemodialysis. Nephrology. 2005; 9 (3): 35-47 (in Russ).

14. Wyld M., Morton R.L., Hayen A. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012; 9 (9): e1001307.

15. Letter of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and the Federal Mandatory Medical Insurance Fund of December 12, 2019 NN 11-7 / I / 2-11779, 17033 / 26-2 / and “On methodological recommendations on methods of paying for medical care at the expense of compulsory medical insurance” (in Russ).

16. Tariff agreement for payment for medical care provided under the territorial program of compulsory medical insurance (MHI) of Moscow for 2020 (in Russ).

17. Teptsova T.S., Bezdenezhnyh T.P., Fedyaeva V.K., Musina N.Z., Hachatryan G.R., Tarasov V.V. Determination of a willing-ness-to-pay threshold and decision-making in financing the healthcare technologies. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomic and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2018;11(3):13-22 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2018.11.3-013-022.

18. Bokhari F.A.S., Gai Y., Gottret P. Government health expenditures and health outcomes. Health Economics. 2007; 16 (3): 257-273.

19. Moreno-Serra R., Smith P.C. Broader health coverage is good for the nation’s health: evidence from country level panel data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society). 2015; 178 (1): 101-124.

20. Omelyanovskiy V.V., Avksentyeva M.V., Sura M.V., Khachatryan G.R., Savilova A.G. Approaches to the formation of a unified methodology for calculating incremental cost / effectiveness indicators using the example of anticancer drugs as part of the revision of lists medicines for medical use. Meditsinskiye tekhnologii. Otsenka i vybor. 2018; 1 (31): 10-20 (in Russ).

21. Jahnz-Rozyk K. et al. Drug policy in Poland. Value in health regional issues. 2017; 13: 23-26.