IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i2d10.1007_s40258-020-00606-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Choice of Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Cost-Utility Analysis Endogenous to the Resulting Value of Technology? A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • William V. Padula

    (University of Southern California
    University of Southern California)

  • Hui-Han Chen

    (University of North Carolina)

  • Charles E. Phelps

    (University of Rochester)

Abstract

Background Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is widely used for health technology assessment; however, concerns exist that cost-utility analysts may suggest higher cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to compensate for technologies of relatively lower value. Objective We explored whether selection of a CUA study’s CET was endogenous to estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Methods We systematically reviewed the US cost-effectiveness literature between 2000 and 2017 where studies with explicit CET and ICERs were included. We classified the ratio of studies hypothesized to analyze cost-effective technologies at low CETs (i.e., less than $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) vs higher CETs (i.e., $100,000–$150,000/QALY) relative to their ICER, using a Chi square test to examine whether technologies that were cost effective at high CETs would still be cost effective at lower thresholds. We also performed fixed-effects linear regression exploring the associations between ICERs and reported CETs over time. Results Among 317 ICERs reviewed: (A) 185 had an ICER

Suggested Citation

  • William V. Padula & Hui-Han Chen & Charles E. Phelps, 2021. "Is the Choice of Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Cost-Utility Analysis Endogenous to the Resulting Value of Technology? A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 155-162, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00606-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-020-00606-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-020-00606-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-020-00606-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    2. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    3. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal round-up: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 19(2)
      by karanshahk2 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2021-04-19 06:00:07

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Basu, Anirban, 2020. "A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Scott Johnson & Matthew Davis & Anna Kaltenboeck & Howard Birnbaum & ElizaBeth Grubb & Marcy Tarrants & Andrew Siderowf, 2011. "Early retirement and income loss in patients with early and advanced Parkinson’s disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 367-376, November.
    3. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Aidan Hollis, 2016. "Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 971-980, October.
    5. David Meltzer & Magnus Johannesson, 1999. "Inconsistencies in the "Societal Perspective" on Costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 371-377, October.
    6. Glenn Jenkins & CHUN-YAN KUO & JOHN GIRALDEZ, 2007. "Canadian Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide," Development Discussion Papers 2007-03, JDI Executive Programs.
    7. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    8. Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Goldman, Dana P. & Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Zheng, Yuhui & Gailey, Adam H., 2012. "The value of medical and pharmaceutical interventions for reducing obesity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 630-643.
    9. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Jaeger, William K. & Egelkraut, Thorsten M., 2011. "Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives and unintended consequences," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4320-4333.
    11. Mark Pauly & Fredric E. Blavin & Sudha Meghan, 2008. "Is There a Market for Voluntary Health Insurance in Developing Countries?," NBER Working Papers 14095, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Johan J. Polder & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2011. "Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 432-445, April.
    13. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    14. Hoel, Michael, 2007. "What should (public) health insurance cover?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 251-262, March.
    15. Verniers, Isabel & Stremersch, Stefan & Croux, Christophe, 2011. "The global entry of new pharmaceuticals: A joint investigation of launch window and price," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 295-308.
    16. Coskeran, Thomas & Denman, Antony & Phillips, Paul & Tornberg, Roger, 2005. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of domestic radon remediation in four primary care trusts located in Northamptonshire, UK," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 43-56, January.
    17. Kenkel, Don, 1997. "On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis, and being rude," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 749-757, December.
    18. Byrne, Dominic & Kwak, Do Won & Tang, Kam Ki & Yazbeck, Myra, 2023. "Spillover effects of retirement: Does health vulnerability matter?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    19. Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Nataša Perić & Judit Simon, 2022. "Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Manuel Gomes & Elizabeth Murray & James Raftery, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 367-378, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-020-00606-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.