IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis


  • Pieter Baal

    () (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Alec Morton

    () (University of Strathclyde)

  • David Meltzer

    () (University of Chicago)

  • Werner Brouwer

    () (Erasmus University Rotterdam)


Abstract New medical technologies that prolong life result in additional health care use in life years gained. Some of these costs in life years gained are considered to be related to the intervention while other costs are considered unrelated. Here, we argue that ignoring these so-called future medical costs in cost effectiveness analysis is contrary to common sense, results in lost health and fails to inform decision makers for whom cost effectiveness is supposed to serve.

Suggested Citation

  • Pieter Baal & Alec Morton & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 1-5, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0976-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0976-0

    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.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer & Anthony J Culyer, 2015. "Causes For Concern: Is Nice Failing To Uphold Its Responsibilities To All Nhs Patients?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 1-7, January.
    3. Pieter van Baal & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2016. "Future Costs, Fixed Healthcare Budgets, and the Decision Rules of Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 237-248, February.
    4. Joseph P. Newhouse, 1992. "Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 3-21, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Brendan Collins’s journal round-up for 18th March 2019
      by Bren Collins in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2019-03-18 12:00:58


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

    Cited by:

    1. Mark P. Connolly & Nikolaos Kotsopoulos & Aomesh Bhatt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Sustainability of public finances: inclusion of unrelated medical cost only part of the story," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1281-1282, November.

    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:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0976-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.