This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Illustrate the Impact of Cost Definitions on Results, Interpretations and Comparability of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in the US

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Sandra L. Tunis (Health Economics and Outcomes Research, IMS Consulting and Services, Falls Church, Virginia, USA)
Abstract

Background: There is a lack of a uniform proxy for defining direct medical costs in the US. This potentially important source of variation in modelling and other types of economic studies is often overlooked. The extent to which increased expenditures for an intervention can be offset by reductions in subsequent service costs can be directly related to the choice of cost definitions. Objective: To demonstrate how different cost definitions for direct medical costs can impact results and interpretations of a cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: The IMS-CORE Diabetes Model was used to project the lifetime (35-year) cost effectiveness in the US of one pharmacological intervention 'medication A' compared with a second 'medication B' (both unspecified) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. The complications modelled included cardiovascular disease, renal disease, eye disease and neuropathy. The model had a Markov structure with Monte Carlo simulations. Utility values were derived from the published literature. Complication costs were obtained from a retrospective database study that extracted anonymous patient-level data from (primarily private payer) adjudicated medical and pharmaceutical claims. Costs for pharmacy services, outpatient services and inpatient hospitalizations were included. Cost definitions for complications included charged, allowed and paid amounts, and for medications included both wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average wholesale price (AWP). Costs were reported in year 2007 values. Results: The cost-effectiveness results differed according to the particular combination of cost definitions employed. The use of charges greatly increased costs for complications. When the analysis incorporated WAC medication prices with charged amounts for complication costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for medication A versus medication B was $US6337 per QALY. When AWP prices were used with charged amounts, medication A became a dominant treatment strategy, i.e. lower costs with greater effectiveness than medication B. For both allowed and paid scenarios, there was a difference in the ICER of over $US10 300 per QALY when medication prices were defined by WAC versus AWP. Ratios of medication costs to cardiovascular complication costs ranged from under 0.45 to over 1.7, depending upon the combination of costing definitions. Conclusions: Explicitly addressing the cost-definition issue can help provide meaningful cost-effectiveness data to payers for policy development and management of healthcare expenditures. It can also help move the pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research fields forward in terms of both methodology and practical application.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/phe/pdfhandler.00019053-200927090-00004.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: Pay per view
File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/phe/fulltext.00019053-200927090-00004.htm
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Pay per view

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.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Wolters Kluwer Health | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

Volume (Year): 27 (2009)
Issue (Month): 9 ()
Pages: 735-744
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:27:y:2009:i:9:p:735-744

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Remco Bouckaert).

Related research
Keywords:

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

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-13.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.