Israel Medical Association Journal

Innovation in medical science is progressing at a rapid pace. As a result, new medical technologies that offer to improve upon or completely replace existing alternatives are continually appearing. These technologies – which include pharmaceuticals, devices, equipment, supplies, medical and surgical procedures, and administrative and support systems – are changing the way medicine can be practiced and delivered, forcing healthcare providers and policymakers to consistently evaluate and adapt to new treatment options. Meanwhile, society is becoming more demanding of new medical technologies. Emerging medical technology, however, has been viewed as a significant factor in increasing the cost of healthcare. The abundance of new medical alternatives, combined with scarcity of resources, has led to priority setting, rationing and the need for more technology management and assessment. Economic evaluation of medical technologies is a system of analysis used to formally compare the costs and consequences of alternative healthcare interventions. EEMT[1] can be used by many healthcare entities, including national policymakers, manufacturers, payers and providers as a tool to aid in resource allocation decisions. This paper discusses the four current popular methodologies for EEMT (cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), and describes the industry environment that has shaped their development.

Background: Until recently trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was the drug recommended in the Leumit Health Fund for the empiric treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women. However, due to increased uropathogen resistance to this drug, the fund has designated nitrofurantoin as its new drug of choice.

Objectives: To evaluate the potential economic impact of implementing this new pharmaco-policy.

Methods: Using data derived from the electronic patient records of the Leumit Health Fund we identified all non-recurrent cases of women aged 18–49 with a diagnosis of acute cystitis or UTI[1] without risk factors for complicated UTI and empirically treated with antibiotics throughout 2003. The final sample comprised 5,489 physician-patient encounters. The proportion of cases treated with each individual drug was calculated, and the excess expenditure due to non-adherence to the new guideline from the perspective of the health fund was evaluated using 5 days of therapy with nitrofurantoin as the reference treatment.

Results: Ofloxacin was the most frequently prescribed drug (30.24%), followed by TMP-SMX[2] (22.43%), cephalexin (15.08%), and nitrofurantoin (12.59%). The observed net aggregate drug expenditure was 2.3 times greater than expected had all cases been treated with nitrofurantoin according to the guideline duration of 5 days. The cost of treatment in 53% of the cases exceeded the expected cost of the guideline therapy.

Conclusions: Successful implementation of the new drug policy will likely improve quality of care and reduce costs to the health fund.