Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018

David D. Kim (), Madison C. Silver, Natalia Kunst, Joshua T. Cohen, Daniel A. Ollendorf and Peter J. Neumann
Additional contact information
David D. Kim: Tufts Medical Center
Madison C. Silver: Tufts Medical Center
Natalia Kunst: University of Oslo
Joshua T. Cohen: Tufts Medical Center
Daniel A. Ollendorf: Tufts Medical Center
Peter J. Neumann: Tufts Medical Center

PharmacoEconomics, 2020, vol. 38, issue 10, No 9, 1135-1145

Abstract: Abstract Objective Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Methods We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives. Results Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900–110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67–3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017–2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991–49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486–77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective. Conclusion Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00942-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().