This paper explores the practice of evidence-based policy in a Swedish healthcare context. The study focused on how policymakers in the specific working group, the Priority-Setting Group (PSG), handled the various forms of evidence and values and their competing rationalities, when producing the Swedish National Guidelines for heart diseases that are based on both clinical and economic evidence and are established to support explicit priority-setting in healthcare. The study contributes to the theoretical and practical debate on evidence-based policy (EBP) by illustrating how the practical tensions of coming to agreement were managed, to a large extent, through deliberation and by creativity.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority rankings i.e. given more resources than others, depending on how serious the medical condition is. This study investigated how a decision-making group, the Priority Setting Group (PSG), used cost-effectiveness data in ranking priority setting decisions in the national guidelines for heart diseases.

METHODS: A qualitative case study methodology was used to explore the use of such data in ranking priority setting healthcare decisions. The study addressed availability of cost-effectiveness data, evidence understanding, interpretation difficulties, and the reliance on evidence. We were also interested in the explicit use of data in ranking decisions, especially in situations where economic arguments impacted the reasoning behind the decisions.

RESULTS: This study showed that cost-effectiveness data was an important and integrated part of the decision-making process. Involvement of a health economist and reliance on the data facilitated the use of cost-effectiveness data. Economic arguments were used both as a fine-tuning instrument and a counterweight for dichotomization. Cost-effectiveness data were used when the overall evidence base was weak and the decision-makers had trouble making decisions due to lack of clinical evidence and in times of uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness data were also used for decisions on the introduction of new expensive medical technologies.

CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness data matters in decision-making processes and the results of this study could be applicable to other jurisdictions where health economics is implemented in decision-making. This study contributes to knowledge on how cost-effectiveness data is used in actual decision-making, to ensure that the decisions are offered on equal terms and that patients receive medical care according their needs in order achieve maximum benefit.

Objectives. Despite the continuing interest in health economic research, we could find no accessible data set on cost-effectiveness, useful as practical information to decision makers who must allocate scarce resources within the cardiovascular field. The aim of this paper was to present cost-effectiveness ratios, based on a systematic literature search for the treatment of heart diseases. Design. A comprehensive literature search on cost-effectiveness analyses of intervention strategies for the treatment of heart diseases was conducted. We compiled available cost-effectiveness ratios for different heart conditions and treatment strategies, in a cost-effectiveness ranking table. The cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as a cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) or life year gained. Results. Cost-effectiveness ratios, ranging from dominant to those costing more than 1,000,000 Euros per QALY gained, and bibliographic references are provided for. The table was categorized according to disease group, making the ranking table readily available. Conclusions. Cost-effectiveness ranking tables provide a means of presenting cost-effectiveness evidence. They provide valid information within a limited space aiding decision makers on the allocation of health care resources. This paper represents an extensive compilation of health economic evidence for the treatment of heart diseases.

Background:  Atrial Fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia.  It increases the risk of thromboembolic events and many atrial fibrillation patients suffer quality of life impairment due to disturbed heart rhythm.  Pulmonary vein isolation using radiofrequency catheter ablation treatment is aimed at maintaining sinus rhythm ultimately improving quality of life.  Randomized clinical trial have shown that catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, but its impact on quality of life and cost-effectiveness has not been widely studied.  Aims:  To assess the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment, among symptomatic atrial fibrillation patients not previously responding to AAD.  Methods:  A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to assess costs and health outcomes in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of RFA and AAD over a lifetime time horizon.  We conducted a literature search and used data from several sources as input variables of the model.  One-year rates of atrial fibrillation with RFA and AAD, respectively, were available from published randomized clinical trials.  Other data sources were published papers and register data.  Results:  The RFA treatment strategy was associated with reduced costs and an incremental gain in QALYs compared to the AAD treatment strategy.  The results were sensitive to whether long-term quality of life improvement is maintained for the RFA treatment strategy and the risk of stroke in the different atrial fibrillation health states.  Conclusion:  This study shows that the short-term improvement in atrial fibrillation associated with RFA is likely to lead to long-term quality of life improvement and lower costs indicating that RFA is cost-effective compared to AAD.