scholarly journals Priority Setting, Cost-Effectiveness, and the Affordable Care Act

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govind Persad

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be the most important health law statute in American history, yet much of the most prominent legal scholarship examining it has focused on the merits of the court challenges it has faced rather than delving into the details of its priority-setting provisions. In addition to providing an overview of the ACA's provisions concerning priority setting and their developing interpretations, this Article attempts to defend three substantive propositions.First, I argue that the ACA is neither uniformly hostile nor uniformly friendly to efforts to set priorities in ways that promote cost and quality.Second, I argue that the ACA does not take a single, unified approach to priority setting; rather, its guidance varies depending on the aspect of the healthcare system at issue (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Medicare, essential health benefits) and the factors being excluded from priority setting (age, disability, life expectancy).Third, I argue that cost-effectiveness can be achieved within the ACA's constraints, but that doing so will require adopting new approaches to cost-effectiveness and priority setting. By limiting the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis, the ACA makes the need for workable rivals to cost-effectiveness analysis a pressing practical concern rather than a mere theoretical worry.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 685-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Goto ◽  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Pascal Lecomte ◽  
Melvin Olson ◽  
Chukwukadibia Udeze ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Joseph Mattingly ◽  
Julia F. Slejko ◽  
Eberechukwu Onukwugha ◽  
Eleanor M. Perfetto ◽  
Shyamasundaran Kottilil ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Melanie Y. Bertram ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Karin Stenberg ◽  
Tessa Tan Torres Edejer

The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) programme has been a global leader in the field of economic evaluation, specifically cost-effectiveness analysis for almost 20 years. WHO-CHOICE takes a "generalized" approach to cost-effectiveness analysis that can be seen as a quantitative assessment of current and future efficiency within a health system. This supports priority setting processes, ensuring that health stewards know how to spend resources in order to achieve the highest health gain as one consideration in strategic planning. This approach is unique in the global health landscape. This paper provides an overview of the methodological approach, updates to analytic framework over the past 10 years, and the added value of the WHO-CHOICE approach in supporting decision makers as they aim to use limited health resources to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Baltussen ◽  
Werner Brouwer ◽  
Louis Niessen

Cost-effectiveness analysis has much conceptual attractiveness in priority setting but is not used to its full potential to assist policy-makers on making choices in health in developed or in developing countries. We call for a shift away from present economic evaluation activities—that tend to produce ad hoc and incomparable economic evaluation studies and, therefore, add little to the compendium of knowledge of cost-effectiveness of health interventions in general—toward a more systematic approach. Research efforts in economic evaluation should build on the foundations of cost-effectiveness research of the past decades to arrive at an informative methodology useful for national policy-makers. This strategy means that governments should steer sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis to obtain systematic and comprehensive information on the economic attractiveness of a set of new and current interventions, using a standardized methodology and capturing interactions between interventions. Without redirecting the focus of economic evaluation research, choosing in health care bears the risk to remain penny-wise but pound-foolish.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document