Do economists have anything to contribute to the debate on urban sprawl? (and would anbody listen to them if they did?)

This essay explores reasons for the relative shortage of work by economists on the subject of urban sprawl. I argue that a correct economic understanding of the sprawl issue is difficult to communicate. Meanwhile, a simplified caricature of economic thinking on sprawl has emerged. It argues that decentralized, low-density development has been chosen by the “free market”, therefore the problem signified by the word sprawl does not exist. This argument, made in the name of economics but not always by economists, has served to polarize the detabe as much as to enlighten it. I propose an alternative understanding of the economics of sprawl that provides common ground for debate among economists, planners, and politicians. The author is associate director of the Center for Regional Economic Issues at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. In a prior life, he studied cost-of-sprawl issues for the New Jersey Office of State Planning. Thanks go to Rachael Callanan for assistance on this paper.     

Development of a health economic model to evaluate the potential benefits of optimal serum potassium management in patients with heart failure

Abstract

Aims: Patients with heart failure are at increased risk of hyperkalemia, particularly when treated with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) agents. This study developed a model to quantify the potential health and economic value associated with sustained potassium management and optimal RAASi therapy in heart failure patients.

Materials and methods: A patient-level, fixed-time increment stochastic simulation model was designed to characterize the progression of heart failure through New York Heart Association functional classes, and predict associations between serum potassium levels, RAASi use, and consequent long-term outcomes. Following internal and external validation exercises, model analyses sought to quantify the health and economic benefits of optimizing both serum potassium levels and RAASi therapy in heart failure patients. Analyses were conducted using a UK payer perspective, independent of costs and utilities related to pharmacological potassium management.

Results: Validation against multiple datasets demonstrated the predictive capability of the model. Compared to those who discontinued RAASi to manage serum potassium, patients with normokalemia and ongoing RAASi therapy benefited from longer life expectancy (+1.38 years), per-patient quality-adjusted life year gains (+0.53 QALYs), cost savings (£110), and associated net monetary benefit (£10,679 at £20,000 per QALY gained) over a lifetime horizon. The predicted value of sustained potassium management and ongoing RAASi treatment was largely driven by reduced mortality and hospitalization risks associated with optimal RAASi therapy.

Limitations: Several modeling assumptions were made to account for a current paucity of published literature; however, ongoing refinement and validation of the model will ensure its continued accuracy as the clinical landscape of hyperkalemia evolves.

Conclusions: Predictions generated by this novel modeling approach highlight the value of sustained potassium management to avoid hyperkalemia, enable RAASi therapy, and improve long-term health economic outcomes in patients with heart failure.     

Economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from Val-HeFT adapted to The Netherlands

Summary

The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was a multinational randomised trial of valsartan versus placebo in a total of 5,010 patients with heart failure. During the study period, valsartan resulted in significant reductions in hospitalisations due to heart failure.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of valsartan in Dutch heart failure patients.

Resource use during Val-HeFT was multiplied by Dutch cost estimates. Mean patient follow-up was 23 months and costs for hospitalisations were €617 lower among valsartan patients. Mean total costs for valsartan and placebo patients were €8,810 and €8,441, respectively, resulting in incremental costs of €368. In patients receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor but no beta-blocker, these incremental costs were even lower (€171). There were overall net savings of €1,311 in patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline.

Valsartan provides clinical benefits at modest costs in The Netherlands. In patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline, valsartan was dominant.