Assessing Value-based Health Care Delivery for Hemodialysis

Parra Moncasi, E. ; Arenas, M.D. ; Alonso, M. ; Martí­nez, M.F. ; Gamen, A. ; Aguarón, J. (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Escobar, M.T. (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Álvarez-Ude, F.

Resumen: Rationale, aims and objectives Disparities in haemodialysis outcomes among centres have been well-documented. Besides, attempts to assess haemodialysis results have been based on non-comprehensive methodologies. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive methodology for assessing haemodialysis centres, based on the value of health care. The value of health care is defined as the patient benefit from a specific medical intervention per monetary unit invested (Value = Patient Benefit/Cost). This study assessed the value of health care and ranked different haemodialysis centres.
Method A nephrology quality management group identified the criteria for the assess- ment. An expert group composed of stakeholders (patients, clinicians and managers) agreed on the weighting of each variable, considering values and preferences. Multi-criteria methodology was used to analyse the data. Four criteria and their weights were identified: evidence-based clinical performance measures = 43 points; yearly mortality = 27 points; patient satisfaction = 13 points; and health-related quality of life = 17 points (100-point scale). Evidence-based clinical performance measures included five sub-criteria, with respective weights, including: dialysis adequacy; haemoglobin concentration; mineral and bone disorders; type of vascular access; and hospitalization rate. The patient benefit was determined from co-morbidity–adjusted results and corresponding weights. The cost of each centre was calculated as the average amount expended per patient per year.
Results The study was conducted in five centres (1–5). After adjusting for co-morbidity, value of health care was calculated, and the centres were ranked. A multi-way sensitivity analysis that considered different weights (10–60% changes) and costs (changes of 10% in direct and 30% in allocated costs) showed that the methodology was robust. The rankings: 4-5-3-2-1 and 4-3-5-2-1 were observed in 62.21% and 21.55%, respectively, of simula- tions, when weights were varied by 60%.
Conclusions Value assessments may integrate divergent stakeholder perceptions, create a context for improvement and aid in policy-making decisions.

Idioma: Inglés

DOI: 10.1111/jep.12483

Año: 2017

Publicado en: JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE 23, 3 (2017), 477-485
ISSN: 1356-1294

Factor impacto JCR: 1.483 (2017)

Categ. JCR: HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES rank: 67 / 94 = 0.713 (2017) - Q3 - T3
Categ. JCR: MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL rank: 81 / 154 = 0.526 (2017) - Q3 - T2
Categ. JCR: MEDICAL INFORMATICS rank: 18 / 25 = 0.72 (2017) - Q3 - T3

Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.641 - Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health (Q2) - Health Policy (Q2)

Tipo y forma: Artículo (Versión definitiva)

Área (Departamento): Área Métodos Cuant.Econ.Empres (Dpto. Estruc.Hª Econ.y Eco.Pb.)