Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified

Michał Jakubczyk and Bogumił Kamiński

Health Economics, 2010, vol. 19, issue 8, 955-963

Abstract: Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) have become widely used in applied health technology assessment and at the same time are criticized as unreliable decision‐making tool. In this paper we show how using CEACs differs from maximizing expected net benefit (NB) and when it can lead to inconsistent decisions. In the case of comparing two alternatives we show the limits of the discrepancy between CEAC and expected NB approach and link it with expected value of perfect information. We also show how the shape of CEAC is influenced by the skewness of estimate of expected NB distribution, the correlation between cost and effect estimates and their variance. In the case of more than two options we show when using CEACs can lead to non‐transitive choices in pair‐wise comparisons and when it lacks independence of irrelevant alternatives property in joint comparisons. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1534

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:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:8:p:955-963

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().