IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v13y2012i3p237-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Pauline Chauvin
  • Jean-Michel Josselin
  • Denis Heresbach

Abstract

The incremental net benefit (INB) and the related acceptability curves for public health programs provide valuable tools for decision making. We proposed to apply them to the assessment of mass screening of colorectal cancer. The now standard guaiac fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is already implemented in several countries. We considered the innovative immunological FOBT and computed tomography colonography (CTC) as competing screening technologies. Using biennial guaiac FOBT as the reference strategy, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of the following alternatives: biennial immunological FOBT, CTC every 5 years (strategy CTC5), and CTC every 10 years (strategy CTC10). Over a 30-year horizon and from the perspective of a third-party payer, we developed a Markov model on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 subjects at average risk of colorectal cancer. Close expected net benefits between immunological FOBT and CTC5 induced uncertainty in the choice of the optimal strategy. Probabilistic sensibility analysis then suggested that below a willingness to pay (WTP) per life-years gained (LYG) of 8,587 €/LYG, CTC10 was optimal, while CTC5 would be preferred beyond a WTP of 8,587 €/LYG.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Pauline Chauvin & Jean-Michel Josselin & Denis Heresbach, 2012. "Incremental net benefit and acceptability of alternative health policies: a case study of mass screening for colorectal cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 237-250, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:13:y:2012:i:3:p:237-250
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0300-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-011-0300-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-011-0300-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurence Clerc & Valérie Jooste & Catherine Lejeune & Bernard Schmitt & Patrick Arveux & Catherine Quantin & Jean Faivre & Anne-Marie Bouvier, 2008. "Cost of care of colorectal cancers according to health care patterns and stage at diagnosis in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(4), pages 361-367, November.
    2. Karine Chevreul, 2010. "Colorectal cancer in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-20, January.
    3. Denis Heresbach & Pauline Chauvin & Aurélie Hess-Miglioretti & Françoise Riou & Jacques Grolier & Jean-Michel Josselin, 2010. "Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with computed tomography colonography according to a polyp size threshold for polypectomy," Post-Print halshs-00480583, HAL.
    4. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    5. Cristina Masseria, 2010. "Colorectal cancer in Italy: a review of current national and regional practice on screening and treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 41-49, January.
    6. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Willemien Schurer, 2010. "The status of colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands: past, present and future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 51-56, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Pauline Chauvin & Jean-Michel Josselin & Denis Heresbach, 2014. "The influence of waiting times on cost-effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 801-812, November.
    3. Joan Mendivil & Marilena Appierto & Susana Aceituno & Mercè Comas & Montserrat Rué, 2019. "Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Pauline Chauvin & Jean-Michel Josselin & Denis Heresbach, 2014. "The influence of waiting times on cost-effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 801-812, November.
    2. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    3. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    4. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    5. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    6. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    8. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    9. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
    12. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    13. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein, 2006. "Identifying key parameters in cost‐effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 383-392, April.
    17. Quang Dang Nguyen & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2022. "A general framework for optimising cost-effectiveness of pandemic response under partial intervention measures," Papers 2205.08996, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    18. Mullahy, John, 2018. "Individual results may vary: Inequality-probability bounds for some health-outcome treatment effects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 151-162.
    19. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    20. Daniel Howdon & James Lomas, 2017. "Pricing implications of non-marginal budgetary impacts in health technology assessment: a conceptual model," Working Papers 148cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-effectiveness; Incremental net benefit; Colorectal cancer; Fecal occult blood test; Computed tomography colonoscopy; I19;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:13:y:2012:i:3:p:237-250. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.