IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i3p249-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical determination of cost‐effectiveness frontier based on net health benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Eugene M. Laska
  • Morris Meisner
  • Carole Siegel
  • Joseph Wanderling

Abstract

Statistical methods are given for producing a cost‐effectiveness frontier for an arbitrary number of programs. In the deterministic case, the net health benefit (NHB) decision rule is optimal; the rule funds the program with the largest positive NHB at each λ, the amount a decision‐maker is willing to pay for an additional unit of effectiveness. For bivariate normally distributed cost and effectiveness variables and a specified λ, a statistical procedure is presented, based on the method of constrained multiple comparisons with the best (CMCB), for determining the program with the largest NHB. A one‐tailed t test is used to determine if the NHB is positive. To obtain a statistical frontier in the λ‐NHB plane, we develop a method to produce the region in which each program has the largest NHB, by pivoting a CMCB confidence interval. A one‐sided version of Fieller's theorem is used to determine the region where the NHB of each program is positive. At each λ, the pointwise error rate is bounded by a prespecified α. Upper bounds on the familywise error rate, the probability of an error at any value of λ, are given. The methods are applied to a hypothetical clinical trial of antipsychotic agents. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel & Joseph Wanderling, 2002. "Statistical determination of cost‐effectiveness frontier based on net health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 249-264, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:249-264
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.659
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tambour, Magnus & Zethraeus, Niklas & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "A Note on Confidence Intervals in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 181, Stockholm School of Economics.
    2. Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel & Aaron A. Stinnett, 1999. "Ratio‐based and net benefit‐based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 171-174, March.
    3. Daniel F. Heitjan, 2000. "Fieller's method and net health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 327-335, June.
    4. Johannesson, Magnus & Weinstein, Milton C., 1993. "On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 459-467, December.
    5. Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel, 1997. "Statistical Inference for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 229-242, May.
    6. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, 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. Ernst, Richard, 2017. "Theories of Health Care Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," SocArXiv gjbcp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Daniel F. Heitjan & Huiling Li, 2004. "Bayesian estimation of cost‐effectiveness: an importance‐sampling approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 191-198, 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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:249-264. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.