Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Discriminate against Patients with Short Life Expectancy?
AbstractDoes the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of health care interventions necessarily discriminate against patients with short life expectancy compared with others? This paper reviews the arguments both that it does and that it does not, and demonstrates that whether the use of any time-dependent outcome measure in CEA will result in discrimination depends, in the context of any given choice between interventions, upon the choice of cost-effectiveness ‘threshold’ adopted by the decision maker, whether the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention for a subgroup of patients with relatively short life expectancy lies above the cost-effectiveness threshold, and whether the ICER for a subgroup of patients with longer life expectancy falls below the cost-effectiveness threshold. For discrimination to result against such patients requires that the long term ratio of costs to QALYs associated with the intervention be lower than the short term ratio of costs to QALYs. The implications for agencies which use CEA as part of their decision making are then discussed.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by The Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis in its series Working Paper Series with number 41_10.
Date of creation: Jan 2010
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGE-2010-12-04 (Economics of Ageing)
- NEP-ALL-2010-12-04 (All new papers)
- NEP-HEA-2010-12-04 (Health Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Anthony Culyer & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier, 2006. "Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 1-4.
- Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
- Mike Paulden & Karl Claxton, 2009. "Budget allocation and the revealed social rate of time preference for health," Working Papers 053cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Louis Niessen & Maarten Postma & Frans Rutten, 2007. "Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 307-317.
- Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Roberto Patuelli).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.