Cargando…

Resource allocation in decision support frameworks

BACKGROUND: Cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis place limits on the dimensions of value that the models can incorporate. Cost–benefit analysis requires monetization of all measures of value (including life), a task sometimes deemed either difficult to accomplish or even repugnant. Cost-effe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phelps, Charles, Madhavan, Guruprasad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30455607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0128-5
_version_ 1783369814132129792
author Phelps, Charles
Madhavan, Guruprasad
author_facet Phelps, Charles
Madhavan, Guruprasad
author_sort Phelps, Charles
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis place limits on the dimensions of value that the models can incorporate. Cost–benefit analysis requires monetization of all measures of value (including life), a task sometimes deemed either difficult to accomplish or even repugnant. Cost-effectiveness analyses include health care gains in natural units (e.g., quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) rather than purely monetizing them (e.g., in dollars) and offers an efficiency perspective based on the ratio of cost per QALYs or similar health measures. These two methods use different rules for investment. Cost–benefit analysis says to invest whenever benefits exceed costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis says to invest if the intervention has a cost per QALY that meets—or is below—a designated cutoff value. METHODS: Multi-criteria frameworks expand decision analyses by considering value tradeoffs from decision makers, and then producing a synthetic measure that summarizes the performance of investment options. This evaluation is done across all chosen dimensions of value, based on the weights provided by the decision makers, but this flexibility comes at a cost. To date, no approach is widely accepted to suggest how much to invest (how to determine a budget constraint) using multi-attribute models. Moreover, there is no agreed-upon method to measure willingness to pay for incremental multi-attribute value improvements. Our paper proposes a way forward. RESULTS: Based on existing dollar estimates of willingness to pay for QALYs, our concept creates a comparable cutoff for multi-criteria value measures. Our proposed method expands the acceptable cost per QALYs in proportion to how much of the total measure is accounted for by the QALY component. Agreed-upon values for cost per QALY are thus extrapolated to account for extra value created by non-QALY attributes of each intervention. CONCLUSION: Using our proposed methods, the cost per QALY cutoff can serve as a benchmark toward creating a resource allocation cutoff in multi-criteria frameworks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6225606
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62256062018-11-19 Resource allocation in decision support frameworks Phelps, Charles Madhavan, Guruprasad Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: Cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis place limits on the dimensions of value that the models can incorporate. Cost–benefit analysis requires monetization of all measures of value (including life), a task sometimes deemed either difficult to accomplish or even repugnant. Cost-effectiveness analyses include health care gains in natural units (e.g., quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) rather than purely monetizing them (e.g., in dollars) and offers an efficiency perspective based on the ratio of cost per QALYs or similar health measures. These two methods use different rules for investment. Cost–benefit analysis says to invest whenever benefits exceed costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis says to invest if the intervention has a cost per QALY that meets—or is below—a designated cutoff value. METHODS: Multi-criteria frameworks expand decision analyses by considering value tradeoffs from decision makers, and then producing a synthetic measure that summarizes the performance of investment options. This evaluation is done across all chosen dimensions of value, based on the weights provided by the decision makers, but this flexibility comes at a cost. To date, no approach is widely accepted to suggest how much to invest (how to determine a budget constraint) using multi-attribute models. Moreover, there is no agreed-upon method to measure willingness to pay for incremental multi-attribute value improvements. Our paper proposes a way forward. RESULTS: Based on existing dollar estimates of willingness to pay for QALYs, our concept creates a comparable cutoff for multi-criteria value measures. Our proposed method expands the acceptable cost per QALYs in proportion to how much of the total measure is accounted for by the QALY component. Agreed-upon values for cost per QALY are thus extrapolated to account for extra value created by non-QALY attributes of each intervention. CONCLUSION: Using our proposed methods, the cost per QALY cutoff can serve as a benchmark toward creating a resource allocation cutoff in multi-criteria frameworks. BioMed Central 2018-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6225606/ /pubmed/30455607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0128-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Phelps, Charles
Madhavan, Guruprasad
Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title_full Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title_fullStr Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title_full_unstemmed Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title_short Resource allocation in decision support frameworks
title_sort resource allocation in decision support frameworks
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30455607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0128-5
work_keys_str_mv AT phelpscharles resourceallocationindecisionsupportframeworks
AT madhavanguruprasad resourceallocationindecisionsupportframeworks