Cargando…

Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, David D., Silver, Madison C., Kunst, Natalia, Cohen, Joshua T., Ollendorf, Daniel A., Neumann, Peter J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7373843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32696192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2
_version_ 1783561570870099968
author Kim, David D.
Silver, Madison C.
Kunst, Natalia
Cohen, Joshua T.
Ollendorf, Daniel A.
Neumann, Peter J.
author_facet Kim, David D.
Silver, Madison C.
Kunst, Natalia
Cohen, Joshua T.
Ollendorf, Daniel A.
Neumann, Peter J.
author_sort Kim, David D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives. RESULTS: Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900–110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67–3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017–2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991–49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486–77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective. CONCLUSION: Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7373843
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73738432020-07-22 Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018 Kim, David D. Silver, Madison C. Kunst, Natalia Cohen, Joshua T. Ollendorf, Daniel A. Neumann, Peter J. Pharmacoeconomics Original Research Article OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine perspective and costing approaches used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and the distribution of reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). METHODS: We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center’s CEA and Global Health CEA registries, containing 6907 cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) and 698 cost-per-disability-adjusted-life-year (DALY) studies published through 2018. We examined how often published CEAs included non-health consequences and their impact on ICERs. We also reviewed 45 country-specific guidelines to examine recommended analytic perspectives. RESULTS: Study authors often mis-specified or did not clearly state the perspective used. After re-classification by registry reviewers, a healthcare sector or payer perspective was most prevalent (74%). CEAs rarely included unrelated medical costs and impacts on non-healthcare sectors. The most common non-health consequence included was productivity loss in the cost-per-QALY studies (12%) and patient transportation in the cost-per-DALY studies (21%). Of 19,946 cost-per-QALY ratios, the median ICER was $US26,000/QALY (interquartile range [IQR] 2900–110,000), and 18% were cost saving and QALY increasing. Of 5572 cost-per-DALY ratios, the median ICER was $US430/DALY (IQR 67–3400), and 8% were cost saving and DALY averting. Based on 16 cost-per-QALY studies (2017–2018) reporting 68 ICERs from both the healthcare sector and societal perspectives, the median ICER from a societal perspective ($US22,710/QALY [IQR 11,991–49,603]) was more favorable than from a healthcare sector perspective ($US30,402/QALY [IQR 10,486–77,179]). Most governmental guidelines (67%) recommended either a healthcare sector or a payer perspective. CONCLUSION: Researchers should justify and be transparent about their choice of perspective and costing approaches. The use of the impact inventory and reporting of disaggregate outcomes can reduce inconsistencies and confusion. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-10-20 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7373843/ /pubmed/32696192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Kim, David D.
Silver, Madison C.
Kunst, Natalia
Cohen, Joshua T.
Ollendorf, Daniel A.
Neumann, Peter J.
Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title_full Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title_fullStr Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title_full_unstemmed Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title_short Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018
title_sort perspective and costing in cost-effectiveness analysis, 1974–2018
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7373843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32696192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2
work_keys_str_mv AT kimdavidd perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018
AT silvermadisonc perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018
AT kunstnatalia perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018
AT cohenjoshuat perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018
AT ollendorfdaniela perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018
AT neumannpeterj perspectiveandcostingincosteffectivenessanalysis19742018