IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries


  • Laura Vallejo-Torres

    (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

  • Borja García-Lorenzo

    (Kronikgune Institute for Health Services Research
    University of Barcelona)

  • Laura Catherine Edney

    (Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University)

  • Niek Stadhouders

    (IQ Healthcare, Radboud University and Medical Center)

  • Ijeoma Edoka

    (University of the Witwatersrand
    University of the Witwatersrand)

  • Iván Castilla-Rodríguez

    (Universidad de La Laguna)

  • Lidia García-Pérez

    (Canary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation (FIISC)
    Canary Islands Health Service (SCS)
    Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC)
    Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del Sistema Nacional de Salud (RedETS))

  • Renata Linertová

    (Canary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation (FIISC)
    Canary Islands Health Service (SCS)
    Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC)
    Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del Sistema Nacional de Salud (RedETS))

  • Cristina Valcárcel-Nazco

    (Canary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation (FIISC)
    Canary Islands Health Service (SCS)
    Research Network on Health Services in Chronic Diseases (REDISSEC)
    Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del Sistema Nacional de Salud (RedETS))

  • Jonathan Karnon

    (Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University)


Background When healthcare budgets are exogenous, cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) used to inform funding decisions should represent the health opportunity cost (HOC) of such funding decisions, but HOC-based CET estimates have not been available until recently. In recent years, empirical HOC-based CETs for multiple countries have been published, but the use of these CETs in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature has not been investigated. Analysis of the use of HOC-based CETs by researchers undertaking CEAs in countries with different decision-making contexts will provide valuable insights to further understand barriers and facilitators to the acceptance and use of HOC-based CETs. Objectives We aimed to identify the CET values used to interpret the results of CEAs published in the scientific literature before and after the publication of jurisdiction-specific empirical HOC-based CETs in four countries. Methods We undertook a scoping review of CEAs published in Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and South Africa between 2016 (2014 in Spain) and 2020. CETs used before and after publication of HOC estimates were recorded. We conducted logit regressions exploring factors explaining the use of HOC values in identified studies and linear models exploring the association of the reported CET value with study characteristics and results. Results 1171 studies were included in this review (870 CEAs and 301 study protocols). HOC values were cited in 28% of CEAs in Spain and in 11% of studies conducted in Australia, but they were not referred to in CEAs undertaken in the Netherlands and South Africa. Regression analyses on Spanish and Australian studies indicate that more recent studies, studies without a conflict of interest and studies estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the HOC value were more likely to use the HOC as a threshold reference. In addition, we found a small but significant impact indicating that for every dollar increase in the estimated ICER, the reported CET increased by US$0.015. Based on the findings of our review, we discuss the potential factors that might explain the lack of adoption of HOC-based CETs in the empirical CEA literature. Conclusions The adoption of HOC-based CETs by identified published CEAs has been uneven across the four analysed countries, most likely due to underlying differences in their decision-making processes. Our results also reinforce a previous finding indicating that CETs might be endogenously selected to fit authors’ conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Vallejo-Torres & Borja García-Lorenzo & Laura Catherine Edney & Niek Stadhouders & Ijeoma Edoka & Iván Castilla-Rodríguez & Lidia García-Pérez & Renata Linertová & Cristina Valcárcel-Nazco & Jon, 2022. "Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 337-349, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00707-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00707-8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL:
    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

    1. Stephen Martin & James Lomas & Karl Claxton & Francesco Longo, 2021. "How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 885-903, November.
    2. Anthony H. Harris & Suzanne R. Hill & Geoffrey Chin & Jing Jing Li & Emily Walkom, 2008. "The Role of Value for Money in Public Insurance Coverage Decisions for Drugs in Australia: A Retrospective Analysis 1994-2004," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 713-722, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Chris Sampson & Bernarda Zamora & Sam Watson & John Cairns & Kalipso Chalkidou & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Nancy Devlin & Borja García-Lorenzo & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Ashley A. Leech & Adrian Towse, 2022. "Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 651-667, September.

    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. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    2. Siverskog, Jonathan & Henriksson, Martin, 2022. "The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    3. Mauskopf, Josephine & Chirila, Costel & Birt, Julie & Boye, Kristina S. & Bowman, Lee, 2013. "Drug reimbursement recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Have they impacted the National Health Service budget?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-59.
    4. Kisser, Agnes & Tüchler, Heinz & Erdös, Judit & Wild, Claudia, 2016. "Factors influencing coverage decisions on medical devices: A retrospective analysis of 78 medical device appraisals for the Austrian hospital benefit catalogue 2008–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(8), pages 903-912.
    5. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.
    6. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    7. Helen Dakin & Nancy Devlin & Yan Feng & Nigel Rice & Phill O'Neill & David Parkin, 2015. "The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1256-1271, October.
    8. Jennifer Whitty & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele & Paul Scuffham, 2012. "Insights from triangulation of two purchase choice elicitation methods to predict social decision making in healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 113-126, March.
    9. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    10. Angela Rocchi & Elizabeth Miller & Robert Hopkins & Ron Goeree, 2012. "Common Drug Review Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 229-246, March.
    11. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
    12. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    13. Malinowski, Krzysztof Piotr & Kawalec, Paweł & Trąbka, Wojciech, 2016. "Impact of patient outcomes and cost aspects on reimbursement recommendations in Poland in 2012–2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(11), pages 1249-1255.
    14. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    15. Bae, Green & Bae, Eun Young & Bae, SeungJin, 2015. "Same drugs, valued differently? Comparing comparators and methods used in reimbursement recommendations in Australia, Canada, and Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 577-587.
    16. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    17. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    18. Francesco Longo & Karl Claxton & Stephen Martin & James Lomas, 2023. "More long‐term care for better healthcare and vice versa: investigating the mortality effects of interactions between these public sectors," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 189-216, June.
    19. Paul R. Healey & Dominic Tilden & Dan Jackson & Lara Aghajanian, 2022. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Trabecular Bypass Devices Versus Usual Care for Patients With Open-Angle Glaucoma," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 355-365, May.
    20. Lesley Chim & Patrick Kelly & Glenn Salkeld & Martin Stockler, 2010. "Are Cancer Drugs Less Likely to be Recommended for Listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 463-475, June.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:20:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00707-8. 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: .

    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.