Cargando…

A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis

The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee (WHSSC) is responsible for planning, commissioning and funding specialised healthcare in Wales. Investment in new technologies or services is based on clinical and economic evidence, using a consistent and transparent process. This is accomplished in t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ryczek, Edyta, Peirce, Susan C., Knight, Laura, Cleves, Andrew, Champion, Andrew, Doull, Iolo, Lewis, Sian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9206921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35211878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00692-y
_version_ 1784729419859886080
author Ryczek, Edyta
Peirce, Susan C.
Knight, Laura
Cleves, Andrew
Champion, Andrew
Doull, Iolo
Lewis, Sian
author_facet Ryczek, Edyta
Peirce, Susan C.
Knight, Laura
Cleves, Andrew
Champion, Andrew
Doull, Iolo
Lewis, Sian
author_sort Ryczek, Edyta
collection PubMed
description The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee (WHSSC) is responsible for planning, commissioning and funding specialised healthcare in Wales. Investment in new technologies or services is based on clinical and economic evidence, using a consistent and transparent process. This is accomplished in three stages. The first stage is the preparation of a rapid evidence review. This then informs the development or update of the relevant Commissioning Policy. The final stage is to prioritise the Commissioning Policy recommendations against all other new services and interventions, to inform WHSSC’s annual commissioning intentions. In 2017, a review was conducted of the WHSSC Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Prior to this only high-risk patients were eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The rapid evidence review identified three randomised controlled trials and two economic analyses relevant to the decision problem. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was generally found to be more expensive and more effective than medical management or surgical aortic valve replacement, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios around £10,500–£36,000 for inoperable groups and £17,000–£24,000 in high-risk groups. The rapid evidence review, expert advice and stakeholder feedback informed the revision process of the Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This recommended the addition of patients unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement and the removal of explicit risk scoring. This recommendation was subject to the prioritisation process (carried out annually). The updated transcatheter aortic valve implantation recommendation was ranked second out of 23 technologies and services competing for additional WHSSC funding. The WHSSC Integrated Commissioning Plan for specialised services in Wales (2019) therefore included funding to support the new criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9206921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92069212022-06-21 A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis Ryczek, Edyta Peirce, Susan C. Knight, Laura Cleves, Andrew Champion, Andrew Doull, Iolo Lewis, Sian Appl Health Econ Health Policy Review Article The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee (WHSSC) is responsible for planning, commissioning and funding specialised healthcare in Wales. Investment in new technologies or services is based on clinical and economic evidence, using a consistent and transparent process. This is accomplished in three stages. The first stage is the preparation of a rapid evidence review. This then informs the development or update of the relevant Commissioning Policy. The final stage is to prioritise the Commissioning Policy recommendations against all other new services and interventions, to inform WHSSC’s annual commissioning intentions. In 2017, a review was conducted of the WHSSC Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Prior to this only high-risk patients were eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The rapid evidence review identified three randomised controlled trials and two economic analyses relevant to the decision problem. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was generally found to be more expensive and more effective than medical management or surgical aortic valve replacement, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios around £10,500–£36,000 for inoperable groups and £17,000–£24,000 in high-risk groups. The rapid evidence review, expert advice and stakeholder feedback informed the revision process of the Commissioning Policy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This recommended the addition of patients unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement and the removal of explicit risk scoring. This recommendation was subject to the prioritisation process (carried out annually). The updated transcatheter aortic valve implantation recommendation was ranked second out of 23 technologies and services competing for additional WHSSC funding. The WHSSC Integrated Commissioning Plan for specialised services in Wales (2019) therefore included funding to support the new criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation treatment. Springer International Publishing 2022-02-25 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9206921/ /pubmed/35211878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00692-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Ryczek, Edyta
Peirce, Susan C.
Knight, Laura
Cleves, Andrew
Champion, Andrew
Doull, Iolo
Lewis, Sian
A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title_full A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title_fullStr A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title_full_unstemmed A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title_short A Case Study on Reviewing Specialist Services Commissioning in Wales: TAVI for Severe Aortic Stenosis
title_sort case study on reviewing specialist services commissioning in wales: tavi for severe aortic stenosis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9206921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35211878
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00692-y
work_keys_str_mv AT ryczekedyta acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT peircesusanc acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT knightlaura acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT clevesandrew acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT championandrew acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT doulliolo acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT lewissian acasestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT ryczekedyta casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT peircesusanc casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT knightlaura casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT clevesandrew casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT championandrew casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT doulliolo casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis
AT lewissian casestudyonreviewingspecialistservicescommissioninginwalestaviforsevereaorticstenosis