IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i1d10.1007_s40273-021-01087-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical Estimates of the Marginal Cost of Health Produced by a Healthcare System: Methodological Considerations from Country-Level Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Laura C. Edney

    (Flinders University)

  • James Lomas

    (University of York)

  • Jonathan Karnon

    (Flinders University)

  • Laura Vallejo-Torres

    (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

  • Niek Stadhouders

    (Radboud University and Medical Center)

  • Jonathan Siverskog

    (Linköping University)

  • Mike Paulden

    (University of Alberta)

  • Ijeoma P. Edoka

    (University of the Witwatersrand
    University of the Witwatersrand)

  • Jessica Ochalek

    (University of York)

Abstract

Many health technology assessment committees have an explicit or implicit reference value (often referred to as a ‘threshold’) below which new health technologies or interventions are considered value for money. The basis for these reference values is unclear but one argument is that it should be based on the health opportunity costs of funding decisions. Empirical estimates of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by a healthcare system have been proposed to capture the health opportunity costs of new funding decisions. Based on a systematic search, we identified eight studies that have sought to estimate a reference value through empirical estimation of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by a healthcare system for England, Spain, Australia, The Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa and China. We review these eight studies to provide an overview of the key methodological approaches taken to estimate the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare system with the aim to help inform future estimates for additional countries. The lead author for each of these papers was invited to contribute to the current paper to ensure all the key methodological issues encountered were appropriately captured. These included consideration of the key variables required and their measurement, accounting for endogeneity of spending to health outcomes, the inclusion of lagged spending, discounting and future costs, the use of analytical weights, level of disease aggregation, expected duration of health gains, and modelling approaches to estimating mortality and morbidity effects of health spending. Subsequent research estimates for additional countries should (1) carefully consider the specific context and data available, (2) clearly and transparently report the assumptions made and include stakeholder perspectives on their appropriateness and acceptability, and (3) assess the sensitivity of the preferred central estimate to these assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura C. Edney & James Lomas & Jonathan Karnon & Laura Vallejo-Torres & Niek Stadhouders & Jonathan Siverskog & Mike Paulden & Ijeoma P. Edoka & Jessica Ochalek, 2022. "Empirical Estimates of the Marginal Cost of Health Produced by a Healthcare System: Methodological Considerations from Country-Level Estimates," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 31-43, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01087-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01087-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01087-6
    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/s40273-021-01087-6?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. Stephen Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice," CeMMAP working papers CWP09/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    3. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    4. Edney, L.C. & Haji Ali Afzali, H. & Cheng, T.C. & Karnon, J., 2018. "Mortality reductions from marginal increases in public spending on health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(8), pages 892-899.
    5. Stephen R. Bond, 2002. "Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 1(2), pages 141-162, August.
    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. Beth Woods & James Lomas & Mark Sculpher & Helen Weatherly & Karl Claxton, 2024. "Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 804-819, April.
    2. Siverskog, Jonathan & Henriksson, Martin, 2022. "The health cost of reducing hospital bed capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).

    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. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    2. Manthos D. Delis & Sotirios Kokas & Steven Ongena, 2016. "Foreign Ownership and Market Power in Banking: Evidence from a World Sample," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(2-3), pages 449-483, March.
    3. Jessica M. Mc Lay & Roy Lay-Yee & Barry J. Milne & Peter Davis, 2015. "Regression-Style Models for Parameter Estimation in Dynamic Microsimulation: An Empirical Performance Assessment," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(2), pages 83-127.
    4. Huy Quang Doan, 2019. "Trade, Institutional Quality and Income: Empirical Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, May.
    5. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    6. Jose Garcia-Louzao & Linas Tarasonis, 2023. "Productivity-enhancing reallocation during the Great Recession: evidence from Lithuania," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 729-749.
    7. Yang, Yong, 2012. "Agglomeration density and tourism development in China: An empirical research based on dynamic panel data model," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1347-1359.
    8. Kampelmann, Stephan & Rycx, François, 2012. "The impact of educational mismatch on firm productivity: Evidence from linked panel data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 918-931.
    9. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto, 2023. "SMEs’ behavior under financial constraints: An empirical investigation on the legal environment and the substitution effect with tax arrears," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    10. Jungmin Lee, 2008. "Outlier Aversion in Subjective Evaluation," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 9(2), pages 141-159, April.
    11. Bobba, Matteo & Coviello, Decio, 2007. "Weak instruments and weak identification, in estimating the effects of education, on democracy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 301-306, September.
    12. Charles Yuji Horioka & Junmin Wan, 2007. "The Determinants of Household Saving in China: A Dynamic Panel Analysis of Provincial Data," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(8), pages 2077-2096, December.
    13. Demir, Firat, 2010. "Exchange Rate Volatility and Employment Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Turkey," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1127-1140, August.
    14. Meschi, Elena & Taymaz, Erol & Vivarelli, Marco, 2011. "Trade, technology and skills: Evidence from Turkish microdata," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(S1), pages 60-70.
    15. Zhou, Xiaoyan & Zhang, Jie & Li, Junpeng, 2013. "Industrial structural transformation and carbon dioxide emissions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 43-51.
    16. Noy, Ilan & Vu, Tam Bang, 2010. "The economics of natural disasters in a developing country: The case of Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 345-354, August.
    17. Isis Gaddis & Stephan Klasen, 2014. "Economic development, structural change, and women’s labor force participation:," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 27(3), pages 639-681, July.
    18. Abonazel, Mohamed R., 2016. "Bias Correction Methods for Dynamic Panel Data Models with Fixed Effects," MPRA Paper 70628, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Andres, Christian & Doumet, Markus & Fernau, Erik & Theissen, Erik, 2015. "The Lintner model revisited: Dividends versus total payouts," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 56-69.
    20. Stefano Schiavo, 2008. "Financial Integration, GDP Correlation and the Endogeneity of Optimum Currency Areas," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(297), pages 168-189, February.

    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:40:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01087-6. 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.