The Intersection of Health Economics, AI and Health Outcomes
By Sumona Bose
February 1, 2024
Introduction
In recent years, the healthcare industry has witnessed a surge in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to improve patient care and outcomes. As the field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) continues to evolve, it is crucial to understand the economic evaluations of AI-based health interventions. A recent study conducted by Voets et al. provides valuable insights into the current landscape of AI in healthcare. This article aims to summarize the key findings of the study and shed light on the merged perspectives of HEOR, AI, and health outcomes. The application of Health Economics in AI allows us to analyse a balanced view of how intrinsic digital innovation is in the healthcare landscape. This article authored by Vithlani et al., builds on the progressive work of Voets et al.
Relevance of Economic Evaluations
Economic evaluations play a crucial role in assessing the value of AI-based health interventions. The original review by Voets et al. found that cost minimization was the prevailing type of health economic evaluation (HEE). However, the updated review reveals a shift towards cost-utility analysis (CUA) as the most common study type. This change suggests a growing emphasis on assessing the broader economic and health outcomes of AI interventions. The application of Health Economics into AI brings about numerous debates on how evaluative methodologies are efficient.
Model-Based Evaluations
The updated review also highlights a significant difference in the use of model-based evaluations compared to the original review. The study found that 45% of the HEEs were model-based, the updated review indicates that the large majority of HEEs now employ this approach. Model-based evaluations allow for estimating future costs and benefits of AI technologies.
Figure 1: Summary of economic evaluation parameters and outcomes.
Limitations and Reporting Standards
Despite the increase in the use of sophisticated economic evaluation techniques, the evidence supporting these methods remains limited. The quality assessment conducted in the study revealed potentially serious limitations in the sources and assumptions regarding input data. The reporting of HEEs also lacked clarity, making it challenging to determine fundamental aspects such as cost application, integration with clinical care, and anticipated users of AI interventions.
Conclusion
The intersection of health economics, AI, and health outcomes is a rapidly evolving field with significant implications for the healthcare industry. The study conducted by Voets et al. provides valuable insights into the current landscape of AI in healthcare. It highlights the need for economic evaluations of AI-based health interventions. It found that AI health technologies are on the rise, with automated image analysis being the most commonly evaluated purpose of AI interventions. The shift towards cost-utility analysis suggests a growing emphasis on assessing the broader economic and health outcomes of AI interventions.
🚨 *What does the U.S. withdrawing from the WHO mean for global health?*
President Trump’s executive order to begin the withdrawal process raises serious concerns about the future of global health security. From financial disparities to a shift in international partnerships, the implications could reshape our collective ability to combat pandemics and health crises.
Dive into our article to understand the potential impacts on health outcomes and the quest for new alliances.
The European Medicines Agency’s PRAC is currently reviewing the potential risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) associated with semaglutide-containing medicines, including popular treatments like Ozempic and Wegovy. With recent studies yielding conflicting evidence, this review is crucial for patient safety and the future of these therapies.
Read the full article to understand the implications and what this could mean for healthcare providers and patients alike!
💡 *Are single-visit cervical cancer screenings the key to better health outcomes in high HIV prevalence areas?*
A recent study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa reveals that repeat single-visit cervical cancer screening using HPV DNA testing is not only the most effective but also the most cost-effective approach for women living with HIV. This aligns with WHO recommendations for comprehensive cervical cancer elimination strategies.
Explore the insights and implications of this vital research that could transform cervical cancer prevention in resource-limited settings.
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.
