Cost-effectiveness versus Cost-Utility Analyses: What Are the Motives Behind Using Each and How Do Their Results Differ?-A Polish Example

Value in Health Regional Issues

Volumn 4, Issue , 2014, Pages 66-74

  Jakubiak Lasocka, Joanna ^a   Jakubczyk, Michał ^b  

^a HealthQuest spó ka z ograniczona odpowiedzialno cia Sp K   (Poland)

^b WARSAW SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Poland)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Cost utility analysis; HTA; Incremental cost effectiveness ratio; Incremental cost utility ratio; Poland

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS RATIO; INCREMENTAL COST UTILITY RATIO; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; ONCOLOGY; POLAND;

EID: 84907938120     PISSN: 22121099     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2014.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Drummond M.F., Sculpher M.J., Torrance G.W., et al. Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs 2005, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 3rd ed.
2. Gold M.R., Siegel J.E., Russel L.B., et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine 1996, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
3. Weinstein M.C., Torrance G., Mcguire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009, 12(Supp. 1):S5-S9.
4. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Canberra, Australia: Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2008. Available from: .[Accessed December 8, 2012]. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Australia-Guidelines-for-preparing-submissions-to-the-Pharmaceutical-Benefits-Advisory-Committee-2008.pdf.
5. Leemput I., Neyt M., Van de Sande S., et al. Belgian Guidelines for Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses: Second Edition. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) 2012, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium, Available from:https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_183C_economic_evaluations_second_edition_0.pdf:(KCE Report 183C. D/2012/10.273/54. [Accessed December 8, 2013]).
6. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf.
7. French Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Heath Care Technologies. Paris, France: Collège des Économistes de la Santé, 2004. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.ces-asso.org/docs/France:Guidelines_HE_Evaluation.PDF.
8. Guidelines for preparing a health economic evaluation. Decree of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki. 2009. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.stm.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=71837&name=DLFE-10037.pdf.
9. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies in Ireland. Cork, Ireland: The Health Information and Quality Authority, 2010. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/HTA_Economic_Guidelines_2010.pdf.
10. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Diemen, The Netherlands: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2006. Available from: . [Accessed November 8, 2013]. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesNLupdated2006.pdf.
11. Guidelines for Funding Applications to PHARMAC. Wellington, New Zealand: Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), 2010. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.pharmac.health.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/128/guidelines_for_making_funding_applications.pdf.
12. Guidelines for Conducting Health Technology Assessment. Warsaw, Poland: Polish Agency for Heath Technology Assessment, 2009. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.aotm.gov.pl/assets/files/wytyczne_hta/2009/Guidelines_HTA_eng_MS_29062009.pdf.
13. Guidance to Manufacturers for Completion of New Product Assessment Form. Glasgow, Scotland: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2013. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/Submission_Process/Submission_Guidance:and_Templates_for_Industry/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission.
14. Lopez-Bastida J., Oliva J., Antonanzas F., et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11:513-520.
15. General Guidelines for Economic Evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Solna, Sweden: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Board, 2003. Available from: . [Accessed December 8, 2013]. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Guidelines_in_Sweden.pdf.
16. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf. [Accessed December 8, 2013].
17. Chapman R.H., Berger M., Weinstein M.C., et al. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis?. Health Econ 2004, 13:429-436.
18. Tengs T.O. Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analysis of interventions for cancer: does adjusting for health-related quality of life really matter?. Value Health 2004, 7:70-78.
19. Greenberg D., Neumann P.J. Does adjusting for health-related quality of life matter in economic evaluations of cancer-related interventions?. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011, 11:113-119.
20. Devlin N., Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004, 13:437-452.