IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a 'perfect' cost-utility ratio

  • Pieter H. M. van Baal

    (Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands)

  • Talitha L. Feenstra

    (Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands)

  • Rudolf T. Hoogenveen

    (Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands)

  • G. Ardine de Wit

    (Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands)

  • Werner B. F. Brouwer

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

An important subject of debate in cost-utility analysis of health care programmes is whether to include costs of unrelated medical care in life years gained. The inclusion of such costs is likely to be of consequence in the case of primary prevention. This paper presents different strategies regarding the inclusion not only of the costs, but also of the health effects of unrelated medical care in economic evaluations. Four different cost-utility ratios are presented and related to the criterion of internal consistency. In addition, the possibility to relate the ratios to a well-posed decision problem is analysed. An example computes the different ratios for smoking cessation interventions in different age groups. Including health care costs of unrelated medical care in life years gained increases cost utility ratios, but excluding unrelated medical costs favours smoking cessation interventions targeted at older smokers over those at younger smokers. We conclude that for primary prevention only a cost utility ratio that includes both the costs and effects of unrelated medical care meets the criterion of internal consistency and is related to a meaningful decision problem. Therefore, this type of cost-utility ratio should be preferred even if the data requirements may be substantial. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1181
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 16 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 421-433

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:4:p:421-433
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
  2. Elamin H. Elbasha & Mark L. Messonnier, 2004. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 21-35.
  3. Maiwenn J. Al & Talitha L. Feenstra & Ben A. van Hout, 2005. "Optimal allocation of resources over health care programmes: dealing with decreasing marginal utility and uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 655-667.
  4. Karlsson, Göran & Johannesson, Magnus, 1998. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and capital costs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1183-1191, May.
  5. Gandjour, Afschin & Lauterbach, Karl Wilhelm, 2005. "Does prevention save costs?: Considering deferral of the expensive last year of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 715-724, July.
  6. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1992. "Cost effectiveness/utility analyses : Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-296, October.
  7. Braden Manns & David Meltzer & Ken Taub & Cam Donaldson, 2003. "Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end-stage renal disease care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 949-958.
  8. Raymond C.W. Hutubessy & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen & David B. Evans & Jan J. Barendregt & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2001. "Stochastic league tables: communicating cost-effectiveness results to decision-makers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(5), pages 473-477.
  9. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes S�ggard & Ole Kronborg, 1998. "Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 9-20.
  10. John A. Nyman, 2004. "Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 417-427.
  11. Weinstein, Milton C. & Manning, Willard Jr., 1997. "Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 121-128, February.
  12. Seshamani, Meena & Gray, Alastair M., 2004. "A longitudinal study of the effects of age and time to death on hospital costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 217-235, March.
  13. 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.
  14. Weinstein, Milton & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1973. "Critical ratios and efficient allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 147-157, April.
  15. David Meltzer, 1997. "Accounting for Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Working Papers 5946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. 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.
  17. Olsen, Jan Abel & Richardson, Jeff, 1999. "Production gains from health care: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-26, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:4:p:421-433. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.