IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v30y2012i11p981-989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Grima
  • Lisa Bernard
  • Elizabeth Dunn
  • Philip McFarlane
  • David Mendelssohn

Abstract

In many jurisdictions, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays an important role in determining drug coverage and reimbursement and, therefore, has the potential to impact patient access. Health economic guidelines recommend the inclusion of future costs related to the intervention of interest within CEAs but provide little guidance regarding the definition of ‘related’. In the case of CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis but do not impact the need for or the intensity of dialysis, the determination of the relatedness of future dialysis costs to the therapy of interest is particularly ambiguous. The uncertainty as to whether dialysis costs are related or unrelated in these circumstances has led to inconsistencies in the conduct of CEAs for such products, with dialysis costs included in some analyses while excluded in others. Due to the magnitude of the cost of dialysis, whether or not dialysis costs are included in CEAs of such therapies has substantial implications for the results of such analyses, often meaning the difference between a therapy being deemed cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are excluded) or not cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are included). This paper explores the issues and implications surrounding the inclusion of dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of dialysis patients but do not impact the need for dialysis. Relevant case studies clearly demonstrate that, regardless of the clinical benefits of a life-extending intervention for dialysis patients, and due to the high cost of dialysis, the inclusion of dialysis costs in the analysis essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio. This raises the significant risk that dialysis patients may be denied access to interventions that are cost effective in other populations due solely to the high background cost of dialysis itself. Finally, the paper presents a case for excluding dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients receiving dialysis but do not impact the need for dialysis. The argument is founded on the following: (i) health economic guidelines imply that dialysis costs are unrelated to such therapies and therefore should not be included in CEAs of such therapies; (ii) the high cost and cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dialysis place an unreasonable and insurmountable barrier to demonstrating the cost effectiveness of such therapies, particularly since the decision to fund dialysis has already been made; and (iii) current clinical and reimbursement practices include the use of such therapies for patients with CKD receiving dialysis. We conclude that the exclusion of dialysis costs in such cases is methodologically correct given current health economic guidelines and is consistent with current practices regarding the treatment of dialysis patients. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Grima & Lisa Bernard & Elizabeth Dunn & Philip McFarlane & David Mendelssohn, 2012. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 981-989, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:11:p:981-989
    DOI: 10.2165/11599390-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11599390-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11599390-000000000-00000?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. Afschin Gandjour, 2006. "Consumption costs and earnings during added years of life ‐ a reply to Nyman," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 315-317, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    4. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost‐effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452, May.
    5. David Meltzer, 1997. "Accounting for Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Working Papers 5946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ren-Yeong Huang & Yuh-Feng Lin & Sen-Yeong Kao & Yi-Shing Shieh & Jin-Shuen Chen, 2014. "A Retrospective Case-Control Analysis of the Outpatient Expenditures for Western Medicine and Dental Treatment Modalities in CKD Patients in Taiwan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.

    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. Marie Kruse & Jan Sørensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an empirical assessment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 63-70, February.
    2. David Canning, 2013. "Axiomatic Foundations For Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1405-1416, December.
    3. Bengt Liljas & Göran S. Karlsson & Nils‐Olov Stålhammar, 2008. "On future non‐medical costs in economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 579-591, May.
    4. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    5. Bengt Liljas, 2011. "Welfare, QALYs, and costs – a comment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 68-72, January.
    6. Douglas Lundin & Joakim Ramsberg, 2008. "On survival consumption costs – a reply to Nyman," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 293-297, February.
    7. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    8. Joel Thompson & Amir Abdolahi & Katia Noyes, 2013. "Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 455-469, June.
    9. Philipson Tomas J & Jena Anupam B, 2006. "Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-33, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Kenkel, Don, 1997. "On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis, and being rude," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 749-757, December.
    12. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2008. "Longevity bias in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 523-534, April.
    13. Ruth Etzioni & Scott D. Ramsey & Kristin Berry & Martin Brown, 2001. "The impact of including future medical care costs when estimating the costs attributable to a disease: a colorectal cancer case study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 245-256, April.
    14. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Joshua Graff Zivin, 2001. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis with risk aversion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 499-508, September.
    16. Lee, Robert H., 2008. "Future costs in cost effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 809-818, July.
    17. Basu, Anirban, 2015. "Welfare implications of learning through solicitation versus diversification in health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 165-173.
    18. Kenkel, Donald S. & Manning, Willard, 1999. "Economic evaluation of nutrition policy: Or, there's no such thing as a free lunch," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 145-162, May.
    19. Johannesson, M. & Jonsson, B. & Jonsson, L. & Kobelt, G. & Zethraeus, N., 2009. "Why Should Economic Evaluations of Medical Innovations Have a Societal Perspective?," Briefings 000228, Office of Health Economics.
    20. Blomqvist, Ake, 2002. "QALYs, standard gambles, and the expected budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 181-195, March.

    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:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:11:p:981-989. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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