Cost-effectiveness analysis: role and implications

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Marsden ◽  
D Wonderling
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is often misperceived to be a cost-cutting exercise. The intention of CEA is not to identify and implement cheap technologies, but rather those which offer maximum health gain, subject to available funds. Such analysis is crucial for decision making in health care, as tight budget constraints mean spending in one area of healthcare displaces spending elsewhere. Therefore in order to achieve the greatest health gain for the overall population, treatments must be selected which provide the greatest health gain within the available funds. Summary: The relevance of CEA in health care systems is explained, using varicose vein treatment in the UK NHS as an example. Treatment for varicose veins is often not commissioned to at a local level, most likely because it is misperceived to be a cosmetic problem. However, this view does not take into account the impact of quality of life. CEA balances costs against a quantitative measure of health related quality of life, and could therefore be used to determine whether it is cost-effective to provide varicose vein treatment. The current literature on the cost-effectiveness of varicose vein treatment is reviewed, and an overview of cost-effectiveness principles is provided. Concepts such as economic modelling, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefit (NMB) and sensitivity analysis are explained, using examples relevant to varicose veins where appropriate. Conclusion: This article explains how, far from cutting costs and sacrificing patient health, CEA provides a useful tool to maximise the health of the population in the face of ever tightening budget constraints. CEA could be used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the various treatment options for varicose veins, and efficiencies realised.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

2020 ◽  
pp. 096452842092028
Author(s):  
Alex Molassiotis ◽  
Bryony Dawkins ◽  
Roberta Longo ◽  
Lorna KP Suen ◽  
Hui Lin Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in Hong Kong. Methods A within trial cost-utility analysis with the primary endpoint for the economic evaluation being the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and associated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) over 14 weeks of treatment. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken with the endpoint being change in pain as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Results Eighty-seven patients were randomised to acupuncture or usual care. Acupuncture resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of −1.8 and −1.8, respectively), pain interference (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of −1.5 and −0.9, respectively) and indicators of quality of life and neurotoxicity-related symptoms. However, in the economic evaluation there was little difference in QALYs between the two arms (mean change 0.209 and 0.200 in the acupuncture and usual care arms, respectively). Also, costs yielded deterministic ICERs of HK$616,965.62, HK$824,083.44 and HK$540,727.56 per QALY gained from the health care provider perspective, the societal perspective and the patient perspective, respectively. These costs are significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold of HK$180,450 that was used for the base case analysis. Conclusion While acupuncture can improve symptoms and quality of life indicators related to CIPN, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for CIPN-related pain in health care systems with limited resources. Trial registration number NCT02553863 (ClinicalTrials.gov) post-results.

scholarly journals Health Care Costs and Cost-effectiveness in Laryngotracheal Stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda X. Yin ◽  
William V. Padula ◽  
Shekhar Gadkaree ◽  
Kevin Motz ◽  
Sabrina Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Tracheal Resection ◽  
Laryngotracheal Stenosis ◽  
Endoscopic Dilation ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objective Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource-intensive disease. The cost-effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS. Study Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Tertiary referral center (2013-2017). Subjects and Methods Thirty-four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost-effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5- and 10-year time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Mean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation-related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P = .03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5-year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost-effective. Over a 10-year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY. Conclusion The cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation-related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost-effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5- and 10-year horizon.

UNDERSTANDING AND ANTICIPATING LAG-TIME BIAS IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES: THE ROLE OF TIME IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 608-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gijs van de Wetering ◽  
Marcel Olde Rikkert ◽  
Gert Jan van der Wilt ◽  
Eddy Adang
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lag Time ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Short Run ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Background: Timely provision of information on the cost-effectiveness of innovations in health care becomes more and more important, resulting in increasing pressure on researchers to provide proof of cost-effectiveness in a short time frame. However, most of these innovations require considerable time and effort to optimally implement leading to a biased “steady state” cost-effectiveness outcome. As decision makers in health care predominantly have a short-term focus, the discrepancy between short-term study outcomes and long-term cost-effectiveness may very well lead to misguided decisions about the adoption of innovations in health care.Methods: Factors such as learning effects, capacity constraints, and delayed time to benefit are all related to a short-run timeframe and result in inefficiencies during the implementation of an innovation. These factors and the mechanisms by which they influence the cost-effectiveness outcome are explained for three different types of healthcare innovations.Results: As standard cost-effectiveness analysis assumes costs and effects to behave constant and representative for an innovation's entire economic lifetime, resulting cost-effectiveness outcomes might give a biased, and often overly pessimistic, reflection of the actual cost-effectiveness of an innovation. This is further amplified by the fact that short-run inefficiencies are most prevalent and impactful during an innovation's earliest stage of operation.Conclusions: This study advocates to carefully take into account the different factors contributing to lag-time bias in the design and analysis of cost-effectiveness studies, and to communicate potential biases due to short-run inefficiencies to all stakeholders involved in the decision making process.

Will Cost Effectiveness Analysis Worsen the Cost Effectiveness of Health Care?

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David U. Himmelstein ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
David H. Bor
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Policy Cost ◽  
The Cost

Cost effectiveness analysis is increasingly advocated as a basis for health policy. Analysts often compare expensive interventions with highly cost-effective programs such as hypertension screening, implying that if the former were curtailed resources would be reallocated to the latter and the efficiency of health care would improve. However, in practice, savings are unlikely to be targeted in this way. We present refined policy models that take into account actual patterns of resource allocation in the United States, and provide more realistic estimates of the likely uses of savings. We illustrate the implications of these models in an analysis of the effects of diverting funds from an expensive but effective practice. Eliminating such a practice would actually worsen the overall cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care unless there are radical changes in health policy. Cost effectiveness analysis incorrectly predicts health and cost outcomes of policy initiatives because it ignores the political constraints to health care decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document