IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i3p407-414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicohort Models in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • James F. O’Mahony
  • Joost van Rosmalen
  • Ann G. Zauber
  • Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Abstract

Background. Models used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of screening programs may include 1 or many birth cohorts of patients. As many screening programs involve multiple screens over many years for each birth cohort, the actual implementation of screening often involves multiple concurrent recipient cohorts. Consequently, some advocate modeling all recipient cohorts rather than 1 birth cohort, arguing it more accurately represents actual implementation. However, reporting the cost-effectiveness estimates for multiple cohorts on aggregate rather than per cohort will fail to account for any heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness between cohorts. Such heterogeneity may be policy relevant where there is considerable variation in cost-effectiveness between cohorts, as in the case of cancer screening programs with multiple concurrent recipient birth cohorts, each at different stages of screening at any one point in time. Objective. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the potential disadvantages of aggregating cost-effectiveness estimates over multiple cohorts, without first considering the disaggregate estimates. Analysis. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of 2 alternative cervical screening tests in a multicohort model and compare the aggregated and per-cohort estimates. We find instances in which the policy choices suggested by the aggregate and per-cohort results differ. We use this example to illustrate a series of potential disadvantages of aggregating CEA estimates over cohorts. Conclusions. Recent recommendations that CEAs should consider the cost-effectiveness of more than just a single cohort appear justified, but the aggregation of estimates across multiple cohorts into a single estimate does not.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. O’Mahony & Joost van Rosmalen & Ann G. Zauber & Marjolein van Ballegooijen, 2013. "Multicohort Models in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 407-414, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:3:p:407-414
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12453503
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12453503
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12453503?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Shu Han & Scott B. Cantor, 2005. "Impact of Generic Drug Entry on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 71-80, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ya-Chen Shih & Nebiyou Bekele & Ying Xu, 2007. "Use of Bayesian Net Benefit Regression Model to Examine the Impact of Generic Drug Entry on the Cost Effectiveness of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Elderly Depressed Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 843-862, October.
    2. Srivatsa Srinivas, S. & Marathe, Rahul R., 2021. "Averting adverse selection: The Government of India's scheme to distribute affordable medicines," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Martin Hoyle, 2011. "Accounting for the Drug Life Cycle and Future Drug Prices in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-15, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:3:p:407-414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.