IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i10d10.1007_s40273-020-00942-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018

Author

Listed:
  • David D. Kim

    (Tufts Medical Center
    Tufts University School of Medicine)

  • Madison C. Silver

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Natalia Kunst

    (University of Oslo
    Yale University School of Medicine
    LINK Medical Research)

  • Joshua T. Cohen

    (Tufts Medical Center
    Tufts University School of Medicine)

  • Daniel A. Ollendorf

    (Tufts Medical Center
    Tufts University School of Medicine)

  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Tufts Medical Center
    Tufts University School of Medicine)

Abstract

Objective Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Methods We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives. Results Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900–110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67–3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017–2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991–49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486–77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective. Conclusion Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion.

Suggested Citation

  • David D. Kim & Madison C. Silver & Natalia Kunst & Joshua T. Cohen & Daniel A. Ollendorf & Peter J. Neumann, 2020. "Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(10), pages 1135-1145, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00942-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. Nyman, 2004. "Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost–utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 417-427, May.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    3. Werner B.F. Brouwer & Marc A. Koopmanschap & Frans F.H. Rutten, 1997. "Productivity costs in cost‐effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 511-514, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 12th October 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-10-12 11:00:03

    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. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    2. Peter J. Neumann & David D. Kim & Thomas A. Trikalinos & Mark J. Sculpher & Joshua A. Salomon & Lisa A. Prosser & Douglas K. Owens & David O. Meltzer & Karen M. Kuntz & Murray Krahn & David Feeny & An, 2018. "Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 767-777, October.
    3. Linda M. Vries & Pieter H. M. Baal & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 119-130, February.
    4. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    6. Douglas Lundin & Joakim Ramsberg, 2008. "On survival consumption costs – a reply to Nyman," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 293-297, February.
    7. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Julie A. Campbell & Glen J. Henson & Valery Fuh Ngwa & Hasnat Ahmad & Bruce V. Taylor & Ingrid Mei & Andrew J. Palmer, 2025. "Estimation of Transition Probabilities from a Large Cohort (> 6000) of Australians Living with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) for Changing Disability Severity Classifications, MS Phenotype, and Disease-Modif," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 223-239, February.
    9. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    10. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    11. Tilling, C & Krol, M & Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & van Exel, J & Brouwer, W, 2009. "The impact of losses in income due to ill health: does the EQ-5D reflect lost earnings?," MPRA Paper 29837, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Dongzhe Hong & Lei Si & Minghuan Jiang & Hui Shao & Wai-kit Ming & Yingnan Zhao & Yan Li & Lizheng Shi, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 777-818, June.
    13. Simon Pol & Paula Rojas Garcia & Fernando Antoñanzas Villar & Maarten J. Postma & Antoinette D. I. Asselt, 2021. "Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1355-1363, December.
    14. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Omar B. Da'ar & Abdi A. Gele, 2023. "Tuberculosis in a weak health system, conflict and fragile zone: The monetary value of human lives lost associated with deaths of persons older than 14 years in Somalia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 53-68, January.
    16. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    18. Nikolai Mühlberger & Gaby Sroczynski & Artemisa Gogollari & Beate Jahn & Nora Pashayan & Ewout Steyerberg & Martin Widschwendter & Uwe Siebert, 2021. "Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1311-1344, November.
    19. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    20. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.

    More about this item

    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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00942-2. 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.