Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:56:54.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care: a bookshelf guide to their meaning and use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2016

Anthony J. Culyer
Anthony J. Culyer*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Anthony J. Culyer, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5T 3M6. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is misunderstanding about both the meaning and the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in policy decision making. This article dissects the main issues by use of a bookshelf metaphor. Its main conclusions are as follows: it must be possible to compare interventions in terms of their impact on a common measure of health; mere effectiveness is not a persuasive case for inclusion in public insurance plans; public health advocates need to address issues of relative effectiveness; a ‘first best’ benchmark or threshold ratio of health gain to expenditure identifies the least effective intervention that should be included in a public insurance plan; the reciprocal of this ratio – the ‘first best’ cost-effectiveness threshold – will rise or fall as the health budget rises or falls (ceteris paribus); setting thresholds too high or too low costs lives; failure to set any cost-effectiveness threshold at all also involves avertable deaths and morbidity; the threshold cannot be set independently of the health budget; the threshold can be approached from either the demand side or the supply side – the two are equivalent only in a health-maximising equilibrium; the supply-side approach generates an estimate of a ‘second best’ cost-effectiveness threshold that is higher than the ‘first best’; the second best threshold is the one generally to be preferred in decisions about adding or subtracting interventions in an established public insurance package; multiple thresholds are implied by systems having distinct and separable health budgets; disinvestment involves eliminating effective technologies from the insured bundle; differential weighting of beneficiaries’ health gains may affect the threshold; anonymity and identity are factors that may affect the interpretation of the threshold; the true opportunity cost of health care in a community, where the effectiveness of interventions is determined by their impact on health, is not to be measured in money – but in health itself.

Type
Debate
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 415 - 432
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atherly, D., Dreibelbis, R., Parashar, U. D., Levin, C., Wecker, J. and Rheingans, R. D. (2009), ‘Rotavirus vaccination: cost-effectiveness and impact on child mortality in developing countries’, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 200(Supplement 1): S28–S38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachmann, M. O. (2010), ‘Cost-effectiveness of community-based treatment of severe acute malnutrition in children’, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10: 605–612.Google Scholar
Birch, S. and Gafni, A. (1992), ‘Cost effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?’, Journal of Health Economics, 11: 279–296.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. D., Neumann, P. J. and Buxton, M. J. (2010), ‘Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold?’, Medical Decision Making, 30: E14–E27.Google Scholar
Chisholm, D., Baltussen, R., Evans, D. B., Ginsberg, G., Lauer, J. A., Lim, S., Ortegon, M., Salomon, J., Stanciole, A. and Tan-Torres Edejer, T. (2012), ‘What are the priorities for prevention and control of non-communicable diseases and injuries in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia?’, British Medical Journal, 344: e586.Google Scholar
Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., Palmer, S. and Culyer, A. J. (2015a), ‘Cause for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients?’, Health Economics, 24: 1–7.Google Scholar
Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., Devlin, N., Smith, P. C. and Sculpher, M. (2015b), ‘Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold’, Health Technology Assessment, 19: 1–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culyer, A. J. (2014), ‘Are There Really Ten Good Arguments for a Societal Perspective in the Economic Evaluations of Medical Innovations?’, in A. J. Culyer and G. Kobelt (eds), Portrait of a Health Economist: Festschrift in Honour of Bengt Jönsson, Lund: Institute of Health Economics, 33–38.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. J. (2015), ‘Why do/should we do economic evaluation?’, Value in Health Spotlight, 1: 8–10.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. J., McCabe, C., Briggs, A. H., Claxton, K., Buxton, M., Akehurst, R. L., Sculpher, M. and Brazier, J. (2007), ‘Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence’, Journal of Health Service Research and Policy, 12: 56–58.Google Scholar
Danzon, P. M., Towse, A. and Mulcahy, A. W. (2015a), ‘Setting cost-effectiveness thresholds as a means to achieve appropriate drug prices in rich and poor countries’, Health Affairs, 30: 1529–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danzon, P. M., Towse, A. and Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. (2015b), ‘Value-based differential pricing: efficient prices for drugs in a global context’, Health Economics, 24: 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, N. and Parkin, D. (2004), ‘Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis’, Health Economics, 13: 437–452.Google Scholar
Doubilet, P., Weinstein, M. C. and McNeil, B. J. (1986), ‘Use and misuse of the term “cost effective” in medicine’, New England Journal of Medicine, 314: 253–256.Google Scholar
Eckermann, S. and Pekarsky, B. (2014), ‘Can the real opportunity cost stand up: displaced services, the straw man outside the room’, PharmacoEconomics, 32: 319–325.Google Scholar
Gafni, A. and Birch, S. (2006), ‘Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda’, Social Science and Medicine, 62: 2091–2100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, B., Harris, A. and Mitchell, A. (2001), ‘Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making’, PharmacoEconomics, 19: 1103–1109.Google Scholar
Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsk, A. and Tugwell, P. (1992), ‘How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 146: 473–481.Google Scholar
Lipsey, R. G. and Lancaster, K. (1956), ‘The general theory of second best’, Review of Economic Studies, 24: 11–32.Google Scholar
Marseille, E., Larson, B., Kazi, D. S., Kahn, J. K. and Rosen, S. (2015), ‘Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches’, Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 93: 118–124.Google Scholar
McCabe, C., Paulden, M., O’Mahony, J. F., Edlin, R. and Culyer, A. J. (2015), ‘Life at a premium: considering an end-of-life premium in value-based reimbursement’, Value in Health, 18: A6–A7.Google Scholar
Newall, A. T., Jit, M. and Hutubessy, R. (2014), ‘Are current cost-effectiveness thresholds for low- and middle-income countries useful? Examples from the world of vaccines’, PharmacoEconomics, 32: 525–531.Google Scholar
NICE (2013a), ‘Bevacizumab in Combination with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer, London: NICE.Google Scholar
NICE (2013b), ‘Ranibizumab for Treating Visual Impairment Caused by Macular Oedema Secondary to Retinal Vein Occlusion, London: NICE.Google Scholar
Nyhan, B. (2010), ‘Why the ‘death panel’ myth wouldn’t die: misinformation in the health care reform debate’, The Forum, 8: doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1354.Google Scholar
Ortegon, M., Lim, S., Chisholm, D. and Mendis, S. (2012), ‘Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and tobacco use in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study’, British Medical Journal, 344: e607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulden, M., O’Mahony, J. F., Culyer, A. J. and McCabe, C. (2014), ‘Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values’, PharmacoEconomics, 32: 1043–1053.Google Scholar
Rawlins, M. D. and Culyer, A. J. (2004), ‘National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements’, British Medical Journal, 329: 224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revill, P., Walker, S., Madan, J., Ciaranello, A., Mwase, T., Gibb, D. M., Claxton, K. and Sculpher, M. J. (2015), ‘Using Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds to Determine Value for Money in Low- and Middle-Income Country Healthcare Systems: Are Current International Norms Fit for Purpose?’, CHE Research Paper 98, University of York, Centre for Health Economics, York.Google Scholar
Shah, M., Johns, B., Abimiku, A. and Walker, D. G. (2011), ‘Cost-effectiveness of new WHO recommendations for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in a resource-limited setting’, AIDS, 25: 1093–1102.Google Scholar
Tanzania Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (2013), Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List, Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.Google Scholar
Teerawattananon, K., Chaw-Yin, M., Wongkittirux, K., Teerawattananon, Y., Chinkulkitnivat, B., Orprayoon, S., Kusaku, S., Tengtrisorn, S. and Jenchitr, W. (2014), ‘Assessing the accuracy and feasibility of a refractive error screening program conducted by school teachers in pre-primary and primary schools in Thailand’, Plos One, 9(6): e96684.Google Scholar
Teerawattananon, Y., Leelukhanaveera, Y., Hanvoravongchai, P., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ingsrisawang, L., Tantivess, S., Chaikledkaew, U., Hiransuthikul, N. and Leartpiriyasuwat, C. (2009), The Potential of Provider-Initiated Voluntary HIV Counselling and Testing at Health Care Settings in Thailand, Nonthaburi: Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program.Google Scholar
Towse, A., Pritchard, C. and Devlin, N. (eds) (2002), Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Economic and Ethical Issues, London: Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
UNAIDS (2013), Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2013, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C. and Zeckhauser, R. (1973), ‘Critical ratios and efficient allocation’, Journal of Public Economics, 2: 147–157.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C. and Stason, W. (1977), ‘Foundations of cost effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices’, New England Journal of Medicine, 296: 716–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woods, B., Revill, P., Sculpher, M. and Claxton, K. (2015), ‘Country-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research’, CHE Research Paper 109, University of York, Centre for Health Economics.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2003), ‘The Selection and Use of Essential Medicines’, WHO Technical Report Series No. 914, Geneva, WHO.Google Scholar