IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rim/rimwps/41_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Discriminate against Patients with Short Life Expectancy?

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Paulden

    (Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University of Toronto, Canada)

  • Anthony J. Culyer

    (Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, UK; Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK; The Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis (RCEA), Italy)

Abstract

Does the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of health care interventions necessarily discriminate against patients with short life expectancy compared with others? This paper reviews the arguments both that it does and that it does not, and demonstrates that whether the use of any time-dependent outcome measure in CEA will result in discrimination depends, in the context of any given choice between interventions, upon the choice of cost-effectiveness ‘threshold’ adopted by the decision maker, whether the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention for a subgroup of patients with relatively short life expectancy lies above the cost-effectiveness threshold, and whether the ICER for a subgroup of patients with longer life expectancy falls below the cost-effectiveness threshold. For discrimination to result against such patients requires that the long term ratio of costs to QALYs associated with the intervention be lower than the short term ratio of costs to QALYs. The implications for agencies which use CEA as part of their decision making are then discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Paulden & Anthony J. Culyer, 2010. "Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Discriminate against Patients with Short Life Expectancy?," Working Paper series 41_10, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    • Handle: RePEc:rim:rimwps:41_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rcea.org/RePEc/pdf/wp41_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(5), pages 612-618, May.
    2. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    3. Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Louis Niessen & Maarten Postma & Frans Rutten, 2007. "Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 307-317, March.
    4. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Anthony Culyer & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier, 2006. "Discounting and cost‐effectiveness in NICE – stepping back to sort out a confusion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 1-4, 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. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    2. Mike Paulden & James O’Mahony & Anthony Culyer & Christopher McCabe, 2014. "Some Inconsistencies in NICE’s Consideration of Social Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1043-1053, November.

    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. Mike Paulden & Anthony J Culyer, 2010. "Does cost-effectiveness analysis discriminate against patients with short life expectancy? Matters of logic and matters of context," Working Papers 055cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
    3. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for Timing when Assessing Health-Related Policies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(S1), pages 73-105, April.
    4. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Mareike Schad & Jürgen John, 2012. "Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(2), pages 127-144, April.
    6. Basu, Anirban, 2020. "A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Mike Paulden & James O’Mahony & Anthony Culyer & Christopher McCabe, 2014. "Some Inconsistencies in NICE’s Consideration of Social Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1043-1053, November.
    8. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Karl Claxton, 2018. "Discounting in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(7), pages 745-758, July.
    9. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    10. Christopher McCabe & Richard Edlin & Peter Hall, 2013. "Navigating Time and Uncertainty in Health Technology Appraisal: Would a Map Help?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(9), pages 731-737, September.
    11. M. Parouty & H. Le & D. Krooshof & M. Postma, 2014. "Differential Time Preferences for Money and Quality of Life," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 411-419, April.
    12. James K. Hammitt, 2012. "Discounting Health And Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis: A Response To Nord," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(7), pages 878-882, July.
    13. E. Wetering & N. Exel & J. Rose & R. Hoefman & W. Brouwer, 2016. "Are some QALYs more equal than others?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, March.
    14. Erik Nord, 2011. "Discounting future health benefits: the poverty of consistency arguments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 16-26, January.
    15. van der Pol, Marjon & Cairns, John, 2008. "Comparison of two methods of eliciting time preference for future health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 883-889, September.
    16. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    17. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Michael Spackman, 2011. "Government discounting controversies: changing prices, opportunity costs and systematic risk," GRI Working Papers 67, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    19. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & D. M. Caldwell & T. J. Peters, 2008. "Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case‐study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(4), pages 807-841, October.
    20. Ana Bobinac & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel, 2011. "Discounting future health gains: an empirical enquiry into the influence of growing life expectancy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 111-119, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rim:rimwps:41_10. 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: Marco Savioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcfeait.html .

    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.