Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: An application to end-stage renal disease care

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 949-958

  Manns, Braden ^a,b,c,f   Meltzer, David ^d   Taub, Ken ^a   Donaldson, Cam ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^e NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f FOOTHILLS HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; End stage renal disease; Future costs; Hemodialysis; Kidney failure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEMODIALYSIS; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MORTALITY; OUTPATIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL;

ADULT; AGED; CANADA; COST OF ILLNESS; FORECASTING; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MARKOV CHAINS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RENAL DIALYSIS;

EID: 0242691991     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.790     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Williams AH. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. BMJ 1985; 291: 326-329.
2. de Wit GA, Ramsteijn PG, de Charro FT. Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy 1998; 44: 215-232.
3. Weinstein MC, Manning Jr. WG. Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 121-128.
4. Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 33-64.
5. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 1-31.
6. Meltzer D, Egleston B, Stoffel D, Dasbach E. Effect of future costs on cost-effectiveness of medical interventions among young adults: the example of intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Med Care 2000; 38: 679-685.
7. Johannesson M, Meltzer D, O'Conor RM. Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 382-389.
8. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2001 Report, Volume 1: Dialysis and Renal Transplantation, Canadian Organ Replacement Register. 2001 June 2001.
9. Hakim RM. Influence of the dialysis membrane on outcome of ESRD patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 32(6 Suppl 4): S71-S75.
10. Levin NW, Zasuwa G, Dumler F. Effect of membrane types on causes of death in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1991; 2: 335.
11. Hakim RM, Held PJ, Stannard DC et al. Effect of the dialysis membrane on mortality of chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 566-570.
12. Hornberger JC, Chernew M, Petersen J, Garber AM. A multivariate analysis of mortality and hospital admissions with high- flux dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 3: 1227-1237.
13. Bloembergen WE, Hakim RM, Stannard DC et al. Relationship of dialysis membrane and cause-specific mortality. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999; 33: 1-10.
14. Koda Y, Nishi S, Miyazaki S et al. Switch from conventional to high-flux membrane reduces the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome and mortality of hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 1997; 52: 1096-1101.
15. Locatelli F, Mastrangelo F. Redaelli B et al. Effects of different membranes and dialysis technologies on patient treatment tolerance and nutritional parameters. The Italian Cooperative Dialysis Study Group. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 1293- 1302.
16. Parker 3rd, TF, Wingard RL, Husni L, Ikizler TA, Parker RA, Hakim RM. Effect of the membrane biocompatibility on nutritional parameters in chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 1996; 49: 551-556.
17. Sonnenberg F, Beck J. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Dec Making 1993; 13: 322-328.
18. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. (2nd edn). Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment: Ottawa, 1997.
19. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA. Methods for Meta-analysis in Medical Research. Wiley: Chichester, England, 2000.
20. Lee H, Manns B, Taub K, Ghali WA, Dean S, Johnson D, Donaldson C. Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 40: 611-622.
21. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725-1730.
22. Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, Taranto SE, McIntosh MJ, Stablein D. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 605-612.
23. Manns BJ, Johnson JA, Taub K, Mortis G, Ghali WA, Donaldson C. (Institute of Health Economics working paper). Quality of life in patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis or Peritoneal Dialysis: the impact of dialysis modality and other important determinants. 2002.
24. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N et al. A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 1996; 50: 235-242.
25. Bonomini V, Coli L, Feliciangeli G, Nanni Costa A, Scolari MP. Long-term comparative evaluation of synthetic and cellulosic membranes in dialysis. Int J Artif Organs 1994; 17: 392-398.
26. Bergamo Collaborative Dialysis Study Group. Acute intradialytic well-being: results of a clinical trial comparing polysulfone with cuprophan. Kidney Int 1991; 40: 714-719.
27. Goeree R, Manalich J, Grootendorst P, Beecroft ML, Churchill DN. Cost analysis of dialysis treatments for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Clin Invest Med 1995; 18: 455-464.
28. Statistics Canada. Detailed average household expenditure for Canada, provinces/territories and selected metropolitan areas. (Statistics Canada Catalogue 62F0031XDB). 1999.
29. Statistics Canada. Household spending on health care. (Statistics Canada Catalogue 82-003-XPB000015302). 1998.
30. Statistics Canada. Labour income. Monthly estimates. (Statistics Canada Catalogue 13F0016XPB Table 1). December 1998.
31. Statistics Canada. Consumer Price Index for Canada [health care (not seasonally adjusted), 1972-1996].
32. Manns BJ, Mortis G, Taub K, McLaughlin K, Donaldson C, Ghali WA. The Southern Alberta Renal Program Database: a prototype for patient management and research initiatives. Clin Invest Med 2001; 24: 164-170.
33. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473-481.
34. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ 1997; 6: 117-132.
35. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Mak 1996; 16: 108-116.
36. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-ellectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991; 265: 2218-2225.
37. Jonsen AR. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care 1986; 14: 172-174.
38. MacLeod A, Grant A, Donaldson C et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of methods of dialysis therapy for end- stage renal disease: systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1-166.
39. Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997.
40. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13(1, Pt 1): 1 7.