IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v19y2010i8p955-963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Jakubczyk
  • Bogumił Kamiński

Abstract

Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) have become widely used in applied health technology assessment and at the same time are criticized as unreliable decision‐making tool. In this paper we show how using CEACs differs from maximizing expected net benefit (NB) and when it can lead to inconsistent decisions. In the case of comparing two alternatives we show the limits of the discrepancy between CEAC and expected NB approach and link it with expected value of perfect information. We also show how the shape of CEAC is influenced by the skewness of estimate of expected NB distribution, the correlation between cost and effect estimates and their variance. In the case of more than two options we show when using CEACs can lead to non‐transitive choices in pair‐wise comparisons and when it lacks independence of irrelevant alternatives property in joint comparisons. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2010. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 955-963, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:8:p:955-963
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1534
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1534?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. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    2. Mohsen Sadatsafavi & Mehdi Najafzadeh & Carlo Marra, 2008. "Technical Note: Acceptability Curves Could Be Misleading When Correlated Strategies Are Compared," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 306-307, May.
    3. Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel & Aaron A. Stinnett, 1999. "Ratio‐based and net benefit‐based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 171-174, March.
    4. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    5. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    6. Peter J. Hammond, 1976. "Changing Tastes and Coherent Dynamic Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(1), pages 159-173.
    7. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2003. "Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 33-49, January.
    8. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261, May.
    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. Ernst, Richard, 2017. "Theories of Health Care Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," SocArXiv gjbcp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Maiwenn Al, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 93-100, February.
    3. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    4. Klemen Naveršnik, 2015. "Output correlations in probabilistic models with multiple alternatives," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 133-139, March.
    5. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2012. "Optimal healthcare decisions: The importance of the covariates in cost–effectiveness analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 512-522.
    6. Dirk Müller & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 219-223, March.

    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. 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.
    2. O'Neill, Donal, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood Intervention: Evidence from a Randomised Evaluation of a Parenting Programme," IZA Discussion Papers 4518, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. P. Sendi & A. Gafni & S. Birch, 2002. "Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 23-31, January.
    4. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    5. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    6. Mickael Löthgren & Niklas Zethraeus, 2000. "Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 623-630, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ana P. Johnson-Masotti & Purushottam W. Laud & Raymond G. Hoffmann & Matthew J. Hayat & Steven D. Pinkerton, 2004. "A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 634-653, November.
    12. Casey Quinn, 2005. "Generalisable regression methods for costeffectiveness using copulas," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 05/13, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Mohan V. Bala & Gary A. Zarkin & Josephine Mauskopf, 2008. "Presenting results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis: the incremental benefit curve," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 435-440, March.
    14. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    15. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    16. Morris Meisner & Eugene M. Laska & Carole Siegel & Joseph Wanderling, 2002. "The familywise error rate of a simultaneous confidence band for the incremental net health benefit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 275-280, April.
    17. Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel & Joseph Wanderling, 2002. "Statistical determination of cost‐effectiveness frontier based on net health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 249-264, April.
    18. P. Pedram Sendi & Andrew H. Briggs, 2001. "Affordability and cost‐effectiveness: decision‐making on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 675-680, October.
    19. Palmer, Stephen & Smith, Peter C., 2000. "Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 755-766, September.
    20. Andrew Willan, 2011. "Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 933-949, November.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:8:p:955-963. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.