IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis


  • Daisuke Goto

    () (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Ya-Chen Tina Shih

    () (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center)

  • Pascal Lecomte

    () (Novartis AG)

  • Melvin Olson

    () (Novartis AG)

  • Chukwukadibia Udeze

    () (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Yujin Park

    () (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation)

  • C. Daniel Mullins

    () (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)


Achieving comprehensive patient centricity in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) requires a statistical approach that accounts for patients’ preferences and clinical and demographic characteristics. Increased availability and accessibility of patient-level health-related utility data from clinical trials or observational database provide enhanced opportunities to conduct more patient-centered CEA. Regression-based approaches that incorporate patient-level data hold great promise for enhancing CEAs to be more patient centered; this paper provides guidance regarding two CEA approaches that apply regression-based approaches utilizing patient-level health-related utility and costs data. The first approach utilizes patient-reported preferences to determine patient-specific utility. This approach evaluates how individuals’ unique clinical and demographic factors affect their utility and cost levels over the course of treatment. The underlying motivation of this approach is to produce CEA estimates that reflect patient-level utilities and costs while adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors to aid patient-centered coverage and treatment decision-making. In the second approach, patient utilities are estimated based on the clinically defined health states through which a patient may transition throughout the course of treatment. While this approach is grounded on the widely used Markov transition model, we refine the model to facilitate an enhancement in conducting regression-based analysis to achieve transparent understanding of differences in utilities and costs across diverse patient populations. We discuss the unique statistical challenges of each approach and describe how these analytical strategies are related to non-regression-based models in health services research.

Suggested Citation

  • Daisuke Goto & Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Pascal Lecomte & Melvin Olson & Chukwukadibia Udeze & Yujin Park & C. Daniel Mullins, 2017. "Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 685-695, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0505-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0505-5

    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. Louise Russell, 2014. "The Science of Making Better Decisions about Health: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis," Departmental Working Papers 201406, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Paula K. Lorgelly & Brett Doble & Rachel J. Knott, 2016. "Realising the Value of Linked Data to Health Economic Analyses of Cancer Care: A Case Study of Cancer 2015," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 139-154, February.
    4. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    5. Jones, A. M. & Lomas, J. & Moore, P. & Rice, N., 2013. "A quasi-Monte Carlo comparison of developments in parametric and semi-parametric regression methods for heavy tailed and non-normal data: with an application to healthcare costs," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 13/30, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    6. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    7. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    8. Bryan, Stirling & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Siegelberg, Taryn & Gold, Marthe, 2009. "Has the time come for cost-effectiveness analysis in US health care?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 425-443, October.
    9. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    10. Manning, Willard G., 1998. "The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 283-295, June.
    11. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0505-5. 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.