Cargando…

Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?

BACKGROUND: The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zamora, Bernarda, Garrison, Louis P., Unuigbe, Aig, Towse, Adrian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33648523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00266-8
_version_ 1783658912365412352
author Zamora, Bernarda
Garrison, Louis P.
Unuigbe, Aig
Towse, Adrian
author_facet Zamora, Bernarda
Garrison, Louis P.
Unuigbe, Aig
Towse, Adrian
author_sort Zamora, Bernarda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including a new technology in a health plan benefit. The STF offered two major alternative approaches—augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)—while emphasizing the need to apply either a willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalize the inclusion decision. METHODS: The MCDA model uses the multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on the expected utility theory. In both ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs are derived in a hierarchical model with two high-level objectives which measure overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption. RESULTS: Even though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, we demonstrate that they can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. The consideration of how costs of medical technology, income, and severity of disease affect value trade-offs demonstrates, however, that reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA requires that health and consumption are either complements or independent attributes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in main factors considered by enrollees and decision makers—costs of the medical technology, income, and severity of disease. Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. Moreover, their similarity would be further enhanced if the QALY is used as the key attribute or anchor in the MCDA value function: the choice between the two is a pragmatic question that is still open.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7923485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79234852021-03-02 Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting? Zamora, Bernarda Garrison, Louis P. Unuigbe, Aig Towse, Adrian Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including a new technology in a health plan benefit. The STF offered two major alternative approaches—augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)—while emphasizing the need to apply either a willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalize the inclusion decision. METHODS: The MCDA model uses the multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on the expected utility theory. In both ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs are derived in a hierarchical model with two high-level objectives which measure overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption. RESULTS: Even though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, we demonstrate that they can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. The consideration of how costs of medical technology, income, and severity of disease affect value trade-offs demonstrates, however, that reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA requires that health and consumption are either complements or independent attributes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in main factors considered by enrollees and decision makers—costs of the medical technology, income, and severity of disease. Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. Moreover, their similarity would be further enhanced if the QALY is used as the key attribute or anchor in the MCDA value function: the choice between the two is a pragmatic question that is still open. BioMed Central 2021-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7923485/ /pubmed/33648523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00266-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zamora, Bernarda
Garrison, Louis P.
Unuigbe, Aig
Towse, Adrian
Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title_full Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title_fullStr Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title_full_unstemmed Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title_short Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
title_sort reconciling acea and mcda: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the u.s. healthcare setting?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33648523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00266-8
work_keys_str_mv AT zamorabernarda reconcilingaceaandmcdaisthereawayforwardformeasuringcosteffectivenessintheushealthcaresetting
AT garrisonlouisp reconcilingaceaandmcdaisthereawayforwardformeasuringcosteffectivenessintheushealthcaresetting
AT unuigbeaig reconcilingaceaandmcdaisthereawayforwardformeasuringcosteffectivenessintheushealthcaresetting
AT towseadrian reconcilingaceaandmcdaisthereawayforwardformeasuringcosteffectivenessintheushealthcaresetting