Developing a Value Framework: The Need to Reflect the Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions

Value in Health

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 234-239

  Sculpher, Mark ^a   Claxton, Karl ^a   Pearson, Steven D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC REVIEW   (United States)

Author keywords

opportunity costs; QALYs; value frameworks; value based pricing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; UNITED KINGDOM; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; PROCEDURES; PURCHASING;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED KINGDOM; VALUE-BASED PURCHASING;

EID: 85013639249     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.021     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. [1] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2013, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.
2. [2] Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. Canada, 3rd ed.), 2006, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON.
3. [3] Australian Government Department of Health. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.5, 2015, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
4. [4] Goetghebeur, G.M., Wagner, M., Khoury, H., et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making 32 (2012), 376–388.
5. [5] Neuman, P.J., Cohen, J.T., Measuring the value of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med 373 (2015), 2295–2297.
6. [6] House of Commons. Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: First Report of the Health Committee 2007–2008. HC27-I, 2008, Stationery Office, London.
7. [7] Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. In press, 2016.
8. [8] Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., et al. Methods for the Economic. Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 4th ed, 2015, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
9. [9] Lomas, J., Soares, M., Claxton, K., Cost-effective but unaffordable paradox: estimating cost-effectiveness thresholds when changes in expenditure are non-marginal. Presented at: UK Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Manchester, January 2016.
10. [10] Stinnett, A., Mullahy, J., Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making 18 (1998), S68–S80.
11. [11] Woods B, Revill P, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research. Value Health 2016;19(8):929-935.
12. [12] Brouwer, W.B.F., Koopmanschap, M.A., On the economic foundations of CEA. Ladies and gentlemen, take your positions!. J Health Econ 19 (2000), 439–459.
13. [13] Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Solomon, J., Tsuchiya, A., Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
14. [14] Patrick, D.L., Erickson, P., Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. 1993, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
15. [15] Torrance, G.W., Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal—a review. J Health Econ 5 (1986), 1–30.
16. [16] Longworth, L., Yang, Y., Young, T., et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess 18 (2014), 1–254.
17. [17] Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., Palmer, S., Culyer, A.J., Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients?. Health Econ 24 (2015), 1–7.
18. [18] Karlsberg Schaffera, S., Sussex, J., Walker, A., Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs. Health Policy 119 (2015), 1237–1244.
19. [19] Appleby, J., Devlin, N., Parkin, D., et al. Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS. Health Policy 91 (2009), 239–245.
20. [20] Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess, 19, 2015, 503.
21. [21] Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Serrano-Aguilar, P., Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS. Presented at the Spanish Health Economics Study Group Meeting, Gran Canaria, 2016.
22. [22] Cochrane, A. St, Leger, A., Moore, S.F., Health service “input” and mortality “output” in developed countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 32 (1978), 200–205.
23. [23] Cremieux, P., Ouellette, P., Pilon, C., Health care spending as determinants of health outcomes. Health Econ 8 (1999), 627–639.
24. [24] Moreno-Serra, R., Smith, P.C., Broader health coverage is good for the nation's health: evidence from country level panel data. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 178 (2015), 101–124.
25. [25] Martin, S., Rice, N., Smith, P.C., Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data. J Health Econ 27 (2008), 826–842.
26. [26] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Oedema (TA237). 2011, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.
27. [27] Wailoo, A.J., Tsuchyia, A., McCabe, C., Weighting must wait: incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis may take longer than expected. Pharmacoeconomics 27 (2009), 983–989.
28. [28] Culyer, A.J., Bombard, Y., An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making 32 (2012), 428–442.
29. [29] Shah, K.K., Tsuchiya, A., Wailloo, A., Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. Eur J Health Econ 15 (2014), 389–399.
30. [30] Donaldson, C., Baker, R., Mason, H., et al. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?. BMC Health Serv Res, 11, 2011, 8.
31. [31] Department of Health. A New Value-Based Approach to the Pricing of Branded Medicines—A Consultation. 2010, Department of Health, London.
32. [32] Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Mukuria, C., et al. Eliciting societal preferences for weighting QALYs for burden of illness and end of life. Med Decis Making 36 (2016), 210–222.
33. [33] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. Value Based Assessment of Health Technologies. 2014, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London.
34. [34] van de Wetering, E.J., Stolk, E.A., van Exel, N.J.A., Brouwer, W.B.F., Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ 14 (2013), 107–115.
35. [35] Ryen, L., Svensson, M., The willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ (published online ahead of print, July 28, 2014, 10.1002/hec.3085.