The Impact of Time Horizons on QALY Calculations in Healthcare
By Melike Belenli Gümüş
June 10, 2024
Introduction
Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) play a pivotal role in determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments, particularly within the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales. While theoretically equal, the practical application of QALYs has raised concerns, especially regarding rare diseases and unique patient populations. This article explores the impact of time horizons on QALY calculations and implicitly funding decisions for healthcare treatments.
Understanding QALYs and NICE’s Evaluation
QALYs blend clinical benefit and treatment duration, with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) using them to assess cost-effectiveness. Treatments exceeding GBP 30,000 per QALY gained face funding challenges. However, the application of QALYs across diverse patient groups has sparked debates on fairness and transparency in decision-making processes.
Figure 1: The concept of Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) combines the clinical benefit of a treatment with the time duration over which the patient benefits. Longer time horizons result in the accumulation of more QALYs. For instance, in a scenario where Treatment A has a quality of life of 0.8 over 40 years and Treatment B has a quality of life of 0.4 over 80 years, both treatments yield the same QALY gain.
Case Studies: Afamelanotide and Givosiran
Examining evaluations of afamelanotide for erythropoietic protoporphyria and givosiran for acute hepatic porphyria reveals discrepancies in time horizons. The length of time considered for treatment impacts QALY gains and subsequent funding recommendations, highlighting the need for consistency and realism in assessments.
Figure 2: Treatment duration in the clinical reality vs. time horizon used to calculate the QALY gain of afamelanotide for treating erythropoietic protoporphyria (above) and givosiran for treating acute hepatic porphyria (below) at NICE.
Analysis of Time Horizons in HST Programme
A comprehensive review of time horizons in Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) evaluations uncovers a trend towards extended durations, sometimes surpassing expected treatment periods or life expectancies. Extended time horizons can alter perceived treatment benefits and impact funding decisions, potentially influencing resource allocation within the healthcare system.
Implications and Recommendations
The study underscores the importance of aligning time horizons with clinical realities to ensure equitable funding decisions. Transparent reporting and methodological consistency in QALY calculations are crucial for promoting fairness and trust in healthcare funding processes. Addressing discrepancies and rationalising parameters like time horizons can enhance the integrity of decision-making frameworks.
Conclusion
The analysis calls for a re-evaluation of time horizons in QALY calculations to uphold fairness and accuracy in healthcare funding assessments. By fostering transparency, consistency, and evidence-based decision-making, organisations like NICE can better serve diverse patient populations and uphold the principles of equitable healthcare access.
🦷 Is oral health taking a back seat in public health discussions in Africa?
A new article reveals alarming statistics about the high prevalence of untreated dental diseases across the continent and a critical shortage of oral health professionals. It emphasizes the urgent need for collaborative action among healthcare providers and policy-makers to integrate oral health into broader public health frameworks.
Discover how strengthening partnerships can pave the way for improved health outcomes and resource allocation in oral health.
🧐 How is the evolving treatment landscape for NSCLC affecting patient access to tislelizumab?
The German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) has launched an early benefit assessment for tislelizumab as a second-line treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC. This assessment notably focuses on PD-L1 negative patients and highlights the need for additional data to substantiate its value amidst a shifting emphasis on first-line immunotherapy.
Explore the nuances of this assessment and its implications for future research and market access in the full article.
🚀 Is blood-based screening redefining colorectal cancer detection?
The Shield blood test offers a non-invasive alternative to colonoscopy—boosting screening uptake, but raising questions around effectiveness and value.
🔍 Discover how this innovation could reshape patient care, payer strategy, and health system costs.
When you partner with Syenza, it’s like a Nuclear Fusion.
Our expertise are combined with yours, and we contribute clinical expertise and advanced degrees in
health policy, health economics, systems analysis, public finance, business, and project management.
You’ll also feel our high-impact global and local perspectives with cultural intelligence.
