Author
Listed:
- Ankur Pandya
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA)
- Mike Paulden
(School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada)
- Jinyi Zhu
(Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA)
- Tara A. Lavelle
(Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)
- James Hammitt
(Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Toulouse School of Economics, University of Toulouse-Capitole, Toulouse, France)
Abstract
Background Decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) using equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes are consistent with using a constant cost-effectiveness threshold over time. We sought to analyze trends in author-reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) thresholds from CEAs published for the US setting over 24 y to retrospectively assess whether the recommended equal discount rates for costs and health were consistent with trends in the CEA literature. Methods We used the Tufts CEA Registry to assess whether author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds changed in CEAs published for the US setting between 1995 and 2018 and back-calculated the implied discount rate for health based on these trends for inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds and an annual discount rate for costs of 3%. Results We found 1995 CEAs published for the US setting and found that average nominal and inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds increased over that time period. The discount rate for health would need to equal 2.43% to 2.48% (depending on the subset of CEAs analyzed) to be consistent with the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds. We also found that restricting our analysis to currency years between 1995 and 2014 would result in a back-calculated discount rate for health of 2.99% to 3.28%. Conclusions We found that CEA researchers have implicitly assumed that inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds in the United States have been increasing over time (1995–2018), which is inconsistent with the recommended and prevailing choice of equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes. Our results are sensitive to the cutoff year used in the analysis. Highlights We show visually and through equations that the recommended and prevailing practice of using equal discount rates for cost and health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) logically implies a constant inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness threshold over time. Using data from the Tufts CEA Registry, we found that author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds used in CEAs published for the US setting with currency years between 1995 and 2018 increased over time (both with and without adjustment for inflation). Assuming an annual discount rate for costs equal to 3%, the discount rate for health would need to equal approximately 2.5% to preserve consistency across decisions taken at different dates given the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds. This finding depends on the cutoff year used in the analysis (data from currency years 1995–2014 would support use of equal discount rates, whereas data after 2014 would suggest a sharper trend toward increasing cost-effectiveness thresholds).
Suggested Citation
Ankur Pandya & Mike Paulden & Jinyi Zhu & Tara A. Lavelle & James Hammitt, 2022.
"Trends in Author-Reported Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in the United States from 1995 to 2018: Implications for Discount Rates,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 885-892, October.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:885-892
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221097106
Download full text from publisher
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:42:y:2022:i:7:p:885-892. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.