Whose costs and benefits? Why economic evaluations should simulate both prevalent and all future incident patient cohorts

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 426-437

  Hoyle, Martin ^a   Anderson, Rob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

chronic disease; cost effectiveness analysis; decision modeling; ICER; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMAN;

COHORT STUDIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS;

EID: 77954297657     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09353946     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sculpher M., Fenwick E., Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 ; 17 (5). 461-477.
2. Layard R., Glaister S. Introduction. In: Layard R, Glaister S, eds. Cost-Benefit Analysis. 2 nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 1994. p 1-56.
3. Beaglehole R., Bonita R., Kjellström T. Basic Epidemiology. Geneva: World Health Organisation ; 1993.
4. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B., Hornberger J., et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices-modeling studies. Value Health. 2003 ; 6 (1). 9-17.
5. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE ; 2008.
6. Pbac. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the PBAC. Part II: guidelines for preparing the main body of a major submission. Section D: economic evaluation for the main indication. Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government ; 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.health. gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-indexg1/ 4pbacguidelines-part2g1/4pbacguidelines-part2-d
7. PHARMAC. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis (PFPA): methods for cost-utility analysis. New Zealand: Pharmaceutical Management Agency ; 2007. Available from: URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/EconomicAnalysis/ pharmacoeconomics
8. Cadth. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health ; 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf
9. Iqwig. Methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system. Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care ; 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.iqwig.de/ download/08-01-24-Methods-of-the-Relation-of-Benefits-to-Costs-Version-1-0.pdf
10. Danzon P., Kim J. The life cycle of pharmaceuticals: a cross-national perspective. Whitehall, UK: Office of Health Economics ; 2002. Available from: URL: http://hc.wharton.upenn.edu/danzon/html/books-and-monographs.htm
11. Salomon JA, Weinstein MC, Goldie SJ Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. Br Med J. 2004 ; 329 (7468). 733-736.
12. Ispor. Country-specific guidelines. Lawrenceville, NJ: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research ; 2008. Available from: URL: www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/COMP1.asp
13. Briggs A., Sculpher M., Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.
14. Stinnett AA, Paltiel AD Estimating CE ratios under second-order uncertainty: the mean ratio versus the ratio of means. Med Decis Making. 1997 ; 17 (4). 483-489.
15. Ansell D., Feest T. UK Renal Registry Report 2004. Bristol, UK: UK Renal Registry ; 2005.
16. Shepherd J., Rogers G., Anderson R., et al. Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta(2) agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over. Health Technol Assess. 2008 ; 12 (19). iii - iv, 1-360.
17. Dewilde S., Anderson R. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24 (5). 486-492.
18. Gravelle H., Smith D. Discounting for health effects in costbenefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2001 ; 10 (7). 587-599.
19. Brouwer WBF, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, Rutten FTH. Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. Br Med J. 2005 ; 331 (7514). 446-448.
20. Gravelle H., Brouwer W., Niessen L., Postma M., Rutten F. Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules. Health Econ. 2007 ; 16 (3). 307-317.
21. van Hout BA, Goes ES, Grijseels EWM, van Ufford MAQ. Economic evaluation in the field of cardiology: theory and practice. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1999 ; 42 (2). 167-173.
22. Tonkin AM, Eckermann S., White H., et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with previous acute coronary syndromes aged 65 to 74 years compared with younger patients: results from the LIPID study. Am Heart J. 2006 ; 151 (6). 1305-1312.
23. Nice. Multiple sclerosis-natalizumab: appraisal consultation document. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ; 2007. Available from: URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=418937
24. Hoyle M. Future drug prices and cost-effectiveness analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008 ; 26 (7). 589-602.