Decision-making in health care is inevitably undertaken in a context of uncertainty concerning the effectiveness and costs of health care interventions and programmes. One method that has been suggested to represent this uncertainty is the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. This technique, which directly addresses the decision-making problem, has advantages over confidence interval estimation for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, despite these advantages, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves have yet to be widely adopted within the field of economic evaluation of health care technologies. In this paper we consider the relationship between cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and decision-making in health care, suggest the introduction of a new concept more relevant to decision-making, that of the cost-effectiveness frontier, and clarify the use of these techniques when considering decisions involving multiple interventions. We hope that as a result we can encourage the greater use of these techniques.

Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Summary Background In 2008, 2·45 million people were diagnosed with cancer and 1·23 million died because of cancer in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU). We aimed to estimate the economic burden of cancer in the EU. Methods In a population-based cost analysis, we evaluated the cost of all cancers and also those associated with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. We obtained country-specific aggregate data for morbidity, mortality, and health-care resource use from international and national sources. We estimated health-care costs from expenditure on care in the primary, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient settings, and also drugs. Additionally, we estimated the costs of unpaid care provided by relatives or friends of patients (ie, informal care), lost earnings after premature death, and costs associated with individuals who temporarily or permanently left employment because of illness. Findings Cancer cost the EU €126 billion in 2009, with health care accounting for €51·0 billion (40%). Across the EU, the health-care costs of cancer were equivalent to €102 per citizen, but varied substantially from €16 per person in Bulgaria to €184 per person in Luxembourg. Productivity losses because of early death cost €42·6 billion and lost working days €9·43 billion. Informal care cost €23·2 billion. Lung cancer had the highest economic cost (€18·8 billion, 15% of overall cancer costs), followed by breast cancer (€15·0 billion, 12%), colorectal cancer (€13·1 billion, 10%), and prostate cancer (€8·43 billion, 7%). Interpretation Our results show wide differences between countries, the reasons for which need further investigation. These data contribute to public health and policy intelligence, which is required to deliver affordable cancer care systems and inform effective public research funds allocation. Funding Pfizer.

Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75003.x

Use of Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis in Health‐Care Resource Allocation Decision‐Making: How Are Cost‐Effectiveness Thresholds Expected to Emerge?

Background Limited resources coupled with unlimited demand for healthcare mean that decisions have to be made regarding the allocation of scarce resources across competing interventions. Policy documents have advocated the importance of public views as one such criterion. In principle, the elicitation of public values represents a big step forward. However, for the exercise to be worthwhile, useful information must be obtained that is scientifically defensible, whilst decision-makers must be able and willing to use it. Aims and objectives The aim was to identify techniques that could be reasonably used to elicit public views on the provision of healthcare. Hence, the objectives were: (1) to identify research methods with the potential to take account of public views on the delivery of healthcare; (2) to identify criteria for assessing these methods; (3) to assess the methods identified according to the predefined criteria; (4) to assess the importance of public views vis-a-vis other criteria for setting priorities, as judged by a sample of decision-makers; (5) to make recommendations regarding the use of methods and future research. Methods A systematic literature review was carried out to identify methods for eliciting public views. Criteria currently used to evaluate such methods were identified. The methods identified were then evaluated according to predefined criteria. A questionnaire-based survey assessed the relative importance of public views vis-a-vis five other criteria for setting priorities: potential health gain; evidence of clinical effectiveness; budgetary impact; equity of access and health status inequalities; and quality of service. Two techniques were used: choice-based conjoint analysis and allocation of points technique. The questionnaire was sent to 143 participants. A subsample was followed up with a telephone interview. Results The methods identified were classified as quantitative or qualitative. RESULTS - QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES: Quantitative techniques, classified as ranking, rating or choice-based approaches, were evaluated according to eight criteria: validity; reproducibility; internal consistency; acceptability to respondents; cost (financial and administrative); theoretical basis; whether the technique offered a constrained choice; and whether the technique provided a strength of preference measure. Regarding ranking exercises, simple ranking exercises have proved popular, but their results are of limited use. The qualitative discriminant process has not been used to date in healthcare, but may be useful. Conjoint analysis ranking exercises did well against the above criteria. A number of rating scales were identified. The visual analogue scale has proved popular within the quality-adjusted life-year paradigm, but lacks constrained choice and may not measure strength of preference. However, conjoint analysis rating scales performed well. Methods identified for eliciting attitudes include Likert scales, the semantic differential technique, and the Guttman scale. These methods provide useful information, but do not consider strength of preference or the importance of different components within a total score. Satisfaction surveys have been frequently used to elicit public opinion. Researchers should ensure that they construct sensitive techniques, despite their limited use, or else use generic techniques where validity has already been established. Service quality (SERVQUAL) appears to be a potentially useful technique and its application should be researched. Three choice-based techniques with a limited application in healthcare are measure of value, the analytical hierarchical process and the allocation of points technique, while those more widely used, and which did well against the predefined criteria, include standard gamble, time trade-off, discrete choice conjoint analysis and willingness to pay. Little methodological work is currently available on the person trade-off. RESULTS - QUALITATIVE TECHNIQUES: Qualitative techniques were classified as either individual or group-based approaches. Individual approaches included one-to-one interviews, dyadic interviews, case study analyses, the Delphi technique and complaints procedures. Group-based methods included focus groups, concept mapping, citizens' juries, consensus panels, public meetings and nominal group techniques. Six assessment criteria were identified: validity; reliability; generalisability; objectivity; acceptability to respondents; and cost. Whilst all the methods have distinct strengths and weaknesses, there is a lot of ambiguity in the literature. Whether to use individual or group methods depends on the specific topic being discussed and the people being asked, but for both it is crucial that the interviewer/moderator remains as objective as possible. The most popular and widely used such methods were one-to-one interviews and focus groups. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.

The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions.

/pdf/development-of-who-guidelines-on-generalized-cost-3z2xlwg9rd.pdf

Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.

It has become increasingly popular to carry out cost-effectiveness analyses in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes. Cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the maximisation of the health effects for a given amount of resources. However, many published studies fail to report the results of cost-effectiveness analysis in a way that is consistent with this underlying aim. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis in an easily accessible way for practitioners in the field. A hypothetical example is used to demonstrate the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis, and we also show how to estimate the appropriate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and how to exclude dominated alternatives. It is then shown how fixed budgets or predetermined prices per effectiveness unit can be used as decision rules to maximise health effects and to determine which programmes to implement on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We hope that the article will contribute towards an increased understanding and application of the appropriate decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis, so that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses can be interpreted meaningfully by decision makers.

The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis.

The friction cost method: a comment.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1050%28199607%295%3A4%3C279%3A%3AAID-HEC218%3E3.0.CO%3B2-J

Outcome measurement in economic evaluation

Cost-effectiveness analysis and capital costs

Twenty-six Swedish dental health care clinics participating in the intervention study "Evaluation of caries preventive measures" have been analysed with focus on costs, with the aim of demonstratin ...

Göran Karlsson

Papers

The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis.

The friction cost method: a comment.

Outcome measurement in economic evaluation

Cost-effectiveness analysis and capital costs

Methods of evaluating dental care costs in the Swedish public dental health care sector.