Journal of Market Access & Health Policy

15 pages, 1045 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Physician Practice Affiliation Drives Site of Care Cost Differentials: An Opportunity to Reduce Healthcare Expenditures

by Deepak A. Kapoor, Mark Camel, David Eagle, Lauren C. Makhoul, Justin Maroney, Zhou Yang and Paul Berggreen

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2025, 13(3), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13030036 - 24 Jul 2025

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 5657

Abstract

The continued migration of physicians from independent practice to affiliation with larger entities has garnered significant scrutiny. These affiliation models include hospitals and health systems, payers and corporate entities, and management services organizations, which may or may not be private equity (PE)-backed. Data [...] Read more.

The continued migration of physicians from independent practice to affiliation with larger entities has garnered significant scrutiny. These affiliation models include hospitals and health systems, payers and corporate entities, and management services organizations, which may or may not be private equity (PE)-backed. Data on the impact of different physician affiliation models on cost of care is limited. We examined the relationship between provider affiliation model, site of care (SOC), and cost of care for certain high-volume procedures in procedure-intensive specialties for both Medicare and commercial insurance. We found that hospital-affiliated physicians are least likely—and PE-affiliated physicians are most likely—to provide care in lower-cost settings. For both Medicare and commercial insurance, SOC contributes meaningfully to procedure unit price, which is consistently greater in hospital-based settings. These findings suggest that the physician affiliation model and associated SOC cost differentials contribute materially to healthcare expenditures. As the Medicare cost differentials are set by statute and regulations, strategies such as site-neutral payments are needed to mitigate the monetary impact of historical and future physician practice migration. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

9 pages, 1004 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoicePerspective

Opportunities for and Challenges of Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Meta-Analyses for Vaccines in Post-EU HTA Regulation Era

by Charlotte Graham, Erin Barker, Joe Moss, Emily Gregg, Rachael McCool, Nathalie Largeron, Mélanie Trichard, José Bartelt-Hofer and Maribel Tribaldos

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2025, 13(2), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13020031 - 11 Jun 2025

Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1764

Abstract

The dynamic nature of infectious diseases introduces inherent challenges to the design of vaccine clinical trials, which consequently makes vaccine indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) and meta-analyses (MAs) more challenging compared with regular pharmaceuticals. However, comparisons of efficacy and safety between vaccines are being [...] Read more.

The dynamic nature of infectious diseases introduces inherent challenges to the design of vaccine clinical trials, which consequently makes vaccine indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) and meta-analyses (MAs) more challenging compared with regular pharmaceuticals. However, comparisons of efficacy and safety between vaccines are being frequently required in vaccine decision making due to a low number of head-to-head clinical trials in the vaccine landscape. The introduction of the European Union Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation (EU HTAR) aims to harmonize HTA efforts across Europe. However, the EU HTAR could also escalate existing challenges for conducting vaccine MAs and ITCs. Such challenges include generating efficacy evidence in time for Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA), incorporating high levels of heterogeneity due to infectious disease-specific characteristics, and tackling a high number of PICOs per submission—likely driven by heterogeneity in the available data and differences in national vaccine calendars. Opportunities to tackle these challenges include introducing a stepwise approach to vaccine assessment in JCA, best-practice recommendations for conducting/interpreting vaccine MAs and ITCs, and condensing the number of PICOs to create larger ‘catch-all’ ITC networks. This perspective article explores these challenges and opportunities further. Full article

(This article belongs to the Collection European Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA))

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 262 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoicePerspective

Health and Social Care Integration: Insights from International Implementation Cases

by Ricardo Correia de Matos, Generosa do Nascimento, Adalberto Campos Fernandes and Cristiano Matos

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2025, 13(2), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13020028 - 5 Jun 2025

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 4263

Abstract

The integration of health and social care is increasingly recognized as essential to address population ageing, the rise in chronic diseases, and persistent health inequities. Across Europe, diverse models have been developed to improve service coordination, resource efficiency, and person-centered care. This paper [...] Read more.

The integration of health and social care is increasingly recognized as essential to address population ageing, the rise in chronic diseases, and persistent health inequities. Across Europe, diverse models have been developed to improve service coordination, resource efficiency, and person-centered care. This paper aims to explore international experiences in integrating health and social care, identify common strategies and challenges, and provide insights to inform policy development in countries where integration remains incipient, with a focus on Portugal. A qualitative comparative approach was employed. A systematic literature review was conducted across PUBMED, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, including peer-reviewed articles, policy reports, and government documents. Thematic analysis was used to identify integration models, enablers, and barriers across different countries. Different models reveal that joint governance, pooled funding, strong community involvement, and digital innovation are key enablers of integration. However, common challenges persist, including fragmented governance, inconsistent implementation, and financial sustainability. In Portugal, structural separation between the health and social sectors continues to limit strategic alignment. Successful integration depends on political commitment, shared vision, and active stakeholder collaboration. European models offer adaptable lessons for Portugal and similar systems, especially regarding intersectoral coordination and preventive care. Integrating health and social care is vital for building resilient, equitable systems. Portugal must adopt a cohesive national strategy; strengthen local implementation; and embrace person-centered, sustainable solutions to ensure long-term impact. Integrating the health and social sectors is indispensable in navigating the ever-evolving healthcare landscape and promoting holistic well-being. Full article

18 pages, 1484 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

The Cost-Effectiveness of Avatrombopag Versus Eltrombopag and Romiplostim in the Treatment of Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia in the UK

by Nichola Cooper, Sebastian Guterres, Michał Pochopień, Koo Wilson, Sam James, Mondher Toumi, Anna Tytuła, Carly Rich and Daniel Eriksson

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2025, 13(2), 11; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13020011 - 24 Mar 2025

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3656

Abstract

Background: Thrombopoietin receptor agonists—romiplostim, eltrombopag and avatrombopag—are commonly used as second-line treatments for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of the three TPO-RAs in adults with insufficient response to previous treatment from the perspective of [...] Read more.

Background: Thrombopoietin receptor agonists—romiplostim, eltrombopag and avatrombopag—are commonly used as second-line treatments for immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of the three TPO-RAs in adults with insufficient response to previous treatment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). The model considered the effects of bleeding events, concomitant ITP medications, rescue therapies and treatment related adverse events over a lifetime horizon. Model inputs for effectiveness were based on a network meta-analysis and other published literature on ITP management. Other model inputs included costs (e.g., drug acquisition and administration) and healthcare resource utilisation. Results: Avatrombopag was associated with higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.979) than romiplostim (10.628) and eltrombopag (10.085), producing incremental QALYs of −0.351 and −0.894, respectively. Avatrombopag was associated with lower total costs (GBP £319,334) compared with romiplostim (GBP 406,361 [cost saving of GBP 87,027]) and higher total costs compared with eltrombopag (GBP 313,987 [incremental cost of GBP 5347]). Avatrombopag therefore dominated romiplostim (more effective and less expensive) and was cost-effective versus eltrombopag (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 5982 per QALY). Conclusions: Avatrombopag is a cost-effective treatment compared with romiplostim and eltrombopag for the second-line treatment of adults with ITP from the perspective of the UK NHS. Full article

► Show Figures

Graphical abstract

14 pages, 255 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoicePerspective

The Integration of Social and Health Sectors in Scotland: An Analysis from the Prism of Different Public Policy Models

by Ricardo Correia de Matos, Generosa do Nascimento, Adalberto Campos Fernandes and Cristiano Matos

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2025, 13(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13010008 - 27 Feb 2025

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2211

Abstract

The integration of health and social care has been a key focus in Scotland, driven by demographic changes, rising healthcare costs, and the need for more efficient service delivery. The Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 sought to formalise this integration by [...] Read more.

The integration of health and social care has been a key focus in Scotland, driven by demographic changes, rising healthcare costs, and the need for more efficient service delivery. The Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 sought to formalise this integration by restructuring governance and service provision to improve coordination between health and social care sectors. Despite these efforts, challenges remain in fully achieving the intended outcomes of the integration. This study analysed Scotland’s integrated health and social care through the theoretical frameworks of public choice, institutionalism, and functionalism. The objective was to examine policy drivers, structural mechanisms, and governance implications, providing insights into the broader impact of integrated care reforms. A qualitative research approach was employed, synthesising data from peer-reviewed literature, government publications, and policy documents. The findings on integration were systematically examined through the lens of each public policy model, allowing for a nuanced analysis of how Scotland’s approach to integration aligns with and diverges from these frameworks. A literature search was performed on PUBMED, Google Scholar, and Scottish government portals. While integration improved coordination and service delivery in some areas, limitations in funding allocation, workforce distribution, and governance autonomy limited its overall success. Scotland’s integrated care model demonstrates potential benefits in reducing service fragmentation and improving patient-centred care; however, persistent challenges such as funding constraints, workforce shortages, and governance conflicts indicate that integration alone is not sufficient to resolve systemic healthcare inefficiencies. This study provides a perspective on Scotland’s health and social care integration, offering valuable lessons for other European countries facing similar demographic and healthcare challenges. Full article

27 pages, 749 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceSystematic Review

Economic Evidence on Cost Sharing and Alternative Insurance Designs to Address Moral and Behavioral Hazards in High-Income Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

by Marlon Graf, James R. Baumgardner, Ulrich Neumann, Iris P. Brewer, Jacquelyn W. Chou and A. Mark Fendrick

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(4), 342-368; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12040027 - 14 Nov 2024

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 6355

Abstract

In health insurance, “moral hazard” describes the concept that coverage without an out-of-pocket cost to consumers could result in health care utilization beyond economically efficient levels. In response, payers in the United States (US) have designed pharmaceutical benefit plans with significant cost exposure [...] Read more.

In health insurance, “moral hazard” describes the concept that coverage without an out-of-pocket cost to consumers could result in health care utilization beyond economically efficient levels. In response, payers in the United States (US) have designed pharmaceutical benefit plans with significant cost exposure (e.g., co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles). While substantial evidence links patient cost exposure to reduced drug spending, it remains unclear to what degree this translates into greater efficiency or an indiscriminate drop in overall consumption also reducing needed utilization. We conducted a systematic literature review to understand whether commonly implemented utilization management (UM) strategies and insurance designs with a behavioral or value-based (BID/VBID) component have been explored as tools to mitigate moral hazard and to assess how cost-sharing policies and innovative insurance designs impact consumer spending. Eligible studies compared conventional cost-exposure policies to BID/VBID, including tiered cost-sharing and other UM strategies. We found that broad implementation of patient cost exposure is not well supported by empirical evidence assessing efficiency—defined as the use of clinically appropriate services with value at or above the marginal cost of health care utilization in the contemporary US setting. As a result, payers and policy makers alike ought to explore insurance alternatives that more closely align health care consumption incentives to value of care. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 983 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Opportunities and Challenges in Cross-Country Collaboration: Insights from the Beneluxa Initiative

by Zilke Claessens, Michiel Lammens, Liese Barbier and Isabelle Huys

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(3), 144-157; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12030012 - 9 Jul 2024

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2843

Abstract

National pricing and reimbursement agencies face growing challenges with complex health technologies, prompting European policy advancements. Beneluxa is a cross-country collaboration involving Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Austria, and Ireland that aims to address sustainable access to medicines. In view of the soon-to-be-implemented EU [...] Read more.

National pricing and reimbursement agencies face growing challenges with complex health technologies, prompting European policy advancements. Beneluxa is a cross-country collaboration involving Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Austria, and Ireland that aims to address sustainable access to medicines. In view of the soon-to-be-implemented EU HTA Regulation, insights and experiences from stakeholders with Beneluxa cross-country collaboration could provide possible transferable learnings. Therefore, this research aims to (i) identify the opportunities and challenges faced by Beneluxa, (ii) gather insights from stakeholders, namely (possible) applicants and policymakers, within and beyond Beneluxa on the initiative and broader cross-country collaboration principles, and (iii) transfer these insights into learnings and recommendations in anticipation of the full implementation of the new HTA Regulation. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with industry and European HTA/policy stakeholders. The principal challenges discussed by stakeholders encompass hesitancy from the industry toward Beneluxa assessments, which were attributed to procedural and timeline uncertainties, legislative framework ambiguity, and challenges in terms of industry’s internal organization. Another challenge highlighted is the resource-intensive nature of the procedure due to diverse approaches among member states. In addition, industry stakeholders mentioned limited communication and procedural complexity. Despite challenges, both stakeholder groups recognized important opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Transferable insights for future cross-country collaboration include transparent communication, clear legislative embedding, internal industry restructuring to facilitate joint HTAs, and member state support for conducting collaborative assessments. The study underscores diverging views among stakeholders on cross-country collaboration’s potential to support HTA and the market access of complex health technologies. While acknowledging benefits, there still are challenges, including industry hesitancy, emphasizing the need for transparent communication and clear guidance in the evolving EU HTA landscape. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 311 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Real-World Evidence to Reinforce Clinical Trial Evidence in Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Review of Real-World Evidence Requirements from Seven Countries and Recommendations to Improve Acceptance

by Katia Thokagevistk, Céline Coppo, Laetitia Rey, Amanda Carelli, Veronica Díez, Sarah Vaselenak, Liana Oliveira, Ajay Patel, Emilia Sicari, Teresa Ramos, Susanne Schach, Erika Schirghuber, Alex Simpson, Remy Choquet and Katell Le Lay

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 105-117; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020009 - 20 May 2024

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 6592

Abstract

Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives: Review HTA bodies’ (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that [...] Read more.

Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives: Review HTA bodies’ (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that may improve acceptance of RWE in efficacy/effectiveness assessments and appraisals processes. Methods: RWE requirements were summarized based on HTAbs’ guidelines. Acceptance by HTAbs was evaluated based on industry experience and case studies. Results: As of June 2022, RWE methodological guidelines were in place in three of the seven countries. HTAbs typically requested analyses based on local data sources, but the preferred study design and data sources differed. HTAbs had individual submission, assessment, and appraisal processes; some allowed early meetings for the protocol and/or results validation, though few involved external experts or medical societies to provide input to assessment and appraisal. The extent of submission, assessment, and appraisal requirements did not necessarily reflect the degree of acceptance. Conclusion: All the countries reviewed face common challenges regarding the use of RWE. Our proposals address the need to facilitate collaboration and communication with industry and regulatory agencies and the need for specific guidelines describing RWE design and criteria of acceptance throughout the assessment and appraisal processes. Full article

5 pages, 422 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceOpinion

EU HTA Regulation and Joint Clinical Assessment—Threat or Opportunity?

by Volker Schuster

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 100-104; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020008 - 13 May 2024

Cited by 14 | Viewed by 2806

Abstract

The vision of a unified European HTA is by no means a new endeavor. At its core are the publicly declared ambitions to harmonize assessments of clinical data within the EU and avoid the duplication of efforts. Not surprisingly, these ambitions are publicly [...] Read more.

The vision of a unified European HTA is by no means a new endeavor. At its core are the publicly declared ambitions to harmonize assessments of clinical data within the EU and avoid the duplication of efforts. Not surprisingly, these ambitions are publicly announced to be motivating the new 2022 EU HTA regulation. However, industry experts typically see more of a risk for additional bureaucracy resulting in delays, further scrutiny, and one additional EU (clinical) dossier to submit on top of all national HTA dossiers, which could be considered a duplication of effort and therefore counterproductive. Regardless of how the details of the process will be defined and how the entire process will work in practice, we can be sure that EU officials will refer to the EU HTA and Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) in particular as a learning system. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the new EU HTA regulation and analyze threats and opportunities for manufacturers and what the resulting opportunities and threats will be at the affiliate level throughout the EU. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 1482 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceSystematic Review

Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review

by Bérengère Macabeo, Arthur Quenéchdu, Samuel Aballéa, Clément François, Laurent Boyer and Philippe Laramée

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 58-80; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020006 - 16 Apr 2024

Cited by 25 | Viewed by 8045

Abstract

Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, [...] Read more.

Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. Methods: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. Conclusion: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1076 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators

by Thomas Desmet, Elaine Julian, Walter Van Dyck, Isabelle Huys, Steven Simoens, Rosa Giuliani, Mondher Toumi, Christian Dierks, Juliana Dierks, Antonella Cardone, Francois Houÿez, Mira Pavlovic, Michael Berntgen, Peter Mol, Anja Schiel, Wim Goettsch, Fabrizio Gianfrate, Stefano Capri, James Ryan, Pierre Ducournau, Oriol Solà-Morales and Jörg Ruof Show full author list Hide full author list

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(1), 21-34; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12010004 - 14 Mar 2024

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3167

Abstract

Objectives: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation’s (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and [...] Read more.

Objectives: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation’s (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. Methods: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. Results: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. Conclusions: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an “inclusive civil society dialogue”, as suggested by the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Strategy. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1182 KB

Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Cochlear Osia System and Baha Attract System in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss or Single-Sided Deafness

by Matthias Brunner, Manjula Schou, Robert J. Briggs and Dell Kingsford Smith

J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(1), 5-20; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12010003 - 6 Mar 2024

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 4704

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of the active transcutaneous Osia^® System versus the passive transcutaneous Baha^® Attract System for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness in an Australian [...] Read more.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of the active transcutaneous Osia^® System versus the passive transcutaneous Baha^® Attract System for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness in an Australian healthcare setting. In the absence of direct comparative evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the clinical effectiveness and utility gains was needed. The ITC was informed by three studies identified through a systematic literature review. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Osia System. The literature review identified three studies suitable to inform an ITC: Mylanus et al. 2020 and Briggs et al. 2022 (Osia System) and den Besten et al. 2019 (Baha Attract System). The Osia System was found to be clinically superior to the Baha Attract System, across objective audiological outcomes resulting in a clinically meaningful utility benefit of 0.03 measured by the Health Utility Index with at least equivalent safety. In conclusion, the Osia System is more effective than the Baha Attract System, providing better hearing and health-related quality of life outcomes. In an Australian healthcare setting, the Osia System is cost-effective as demonstrated in a cost-utility analysis versus the Baha Attract System. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Editor’s Choice Articles

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI