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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |