Using Economic Analyses for Local Priority Setting: The Population Cost-Impact Approach
Abstract
Introduction: Standard methods of economic analysis may not be suitable for local decision making that is specific to a particular population. Background: We describe a new three-step methodology, termed `population cost-impact analysis', which provides a population perspective to the costs and benefits of alternative interventions. The first two steps involve calculating the population impact and the costs of the proposed interventions relevant to local conditions. This involves the calculation of population impact measures (which have been previously described but are not currently used extensively) - measures of absolute risk and risk reduction, applied to a population denominator. In step three, preferences of policy-makers are obtained. This is in contrast to the QALY approach in which quality weights are obtained as a part of the measurement of benefit. Methods: We applied the population cost-impact analysis method to a comparison of two interventions - increasing the use of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and smoking cessation - after myocardial infarction in a scaled-back notional local population of 100_000 people in England. Twenty-two public health professionals were asked via a questionnaire to rank the order in which they would implement four interventions. They were given information on both population cost impact and QALYs for each intervention. Results: In a population of 100_000 people, moving from current to best practice for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and smoking cessation will prevent 11 and 4 deaths (or gain of 127 or 42 life-years), respectively. The cost per event prevented in the next year, or life-year gained, is less for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists than for smoking cessation. Public health professionals were found to be more inclined to rank alternative interventions according to the population cost impact than the QALY approach. Discussion: The use of the population cost-impact approach allows information on the benefits of moving from current to best practice to be presented in terms of the benefits and costs to a particular population. The process for deciding between alternative interventions in a prioritisation exercise may differ according to the local context. We suggest that the valuation of the benefit is performed after the benefits have been quantified and that it takes into account local issues relevant to prioritisation. It would be an appropriate next step to experiment with, and formalise, this part of the population cost-impact analysis to provide a standardised approach for determining willingness to pay and provide a ranking of priorities. Conclusion: Our method adds a new dimension to economic analysis, the ability to identify costs and benefits of potential interventions to a defined population, which may be of considerable use for policy makers working at the local level.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.
Volume (Year): 5 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 45-54
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:5:y:2006:i:1:p:45-54
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords: Decision-making; Health-economics; Priority-setting;Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:5:y:2006:i:1:p:45-54For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.