scholarly journals Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions for Priority Setting in the Health System: An Update From WHO CHOICE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Y. Bertram ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Karin Stenberg ◽  
Tessa Tan Torres Edejer
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health System ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Added Value ◽  
World Health ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: Penny-wise but pound-foolish

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Baltussen ◽  
Werner Brouwer ◽  
Louis Niessen
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast and Lung Cancer- A Review Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 387-392
Author(s):  
Dr. Baharul Islam H ◽  
◽  
Dr. Rajesh Venkataraman ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cause Of Death ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Early Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
The Cost

According to estimation from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019, cancer is the first or second leading cause of death before the age of 70 years in 112 of 183 countries and ranks third or fourth in a further 23 countries. Cancer is a group of more than 100 different and distinctive diseases. Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for about 10 million deaths per year .Various studies have estimated that reduction in treatment costs through early screening detection may be 30% to 100% or more of the cost of screening. The basic cost-effectiveness calculation appears to be simple, choices about units of measurement, definitions of interventions, scope of costs, and prices to be included not only will alter the numerical results but also will affect the interpretation of the cost-effectiveness ratio. If the cost-effectiveness analysis uses number of deaths averted as its measure of health gain, then allocating resources to more cost-effective interventions will avert the most deaths. Cost-effectiveness analysis helps identify neglected opportunities by highlighting interventions that are relatively inexpensive, yet have the potential to reduce the disease burden substantially.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of WTA-WTP Disparity for Dental Interventions and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Healthcare ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Pedram Sendi ◽  
Arta Ramadani ◽  
Nicola U. Zitzmann ◽  
Michael M. Bornstein
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
The Impact

Cost-effectiveness analysis is widely adopted as an analytical framework to evaluate whether health care interventions represent value for money, and its use in dentistry is increasing. Traditionally, in cost-effectiveness analysis, one assumes that the decision maker’s maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for health gain is equivalent to his minimum willingness to accept (WTA) monetary compensation for health loss. It has been documented in the literature that losses are weighted higher than equivalent gains, i.e., that WTA exceeds WTP for the same health condition, resulting in a WTA/WTP ratio greater than 1. There is a knowledge gap of published WTA/WTP ratios for dental interventions in the literature. We therefore conducted a (i) systematic review of published WTA-WTP estimates in dentistry (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, London, UK) and (ii) a patient-level analysis of WTA/WTP ratios of included studies, and (iii) we demonstrate the impact of a WTA-WTP disparity on cost-effectiveness analysis. Out of 55 eligible studies, two studies were included in our review. The WTA/WTP ratio ranged from 2.58 for discontinuing water fluoridation to 5.12 for mandibular implant overdentures, indicating a higher disparity for implant rehabilitations than for dental public health interventions. A WTA-WTP disparity inflates the cost-effectiveness of dental interventions when there is a substantial risk of both lower costs and health outcomes. We therefore recommend that in these cases the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are reported using different WTA/WTP ratios in a sensitivity analysis.

scholarly journals How Do Decision Makers in Europe Value Other Economic Evaluation Tools Than Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Vaccines?

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. A675-A676 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Höhne ◽  
N. Demarteau ◽  
Ö. Saka ◽  
B. Standaert ◽  
J. Kleintjens
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evaluation Tools ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document