IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Fieller's method and net health benefits

  • Daniel F. Heitjan
Registered author(s):

    Statistical and conceptual difficulties complicate the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). An alternative approach is to measure cost-effectiveness by the incremental net health benefit (INHB), defined as the difference in mean effectiveness of a new treatment compared with a standard, adjusted for cost difference by subtracting the health foregone if purchasing care at the rate of a marginally cost-effective therapy. Because net health benefit (NHB) is dependent on this threshold rate, one can construct confidence intervals for the INHB at various values of the rate. It turns out that the set of rates where new and standard are not significantly different is equal to the Fieller's method confidence set for the ICER. We review the derivation of the Fieller's method confidence set, present numerical examples, and discuss the implications of our result for the calculation and interpretation of NHB analyses. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

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

    Volume (Year): 9 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 327-335

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:4:p:327-335
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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. 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.
    2. Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340.
    3. Daniel F. Heitjan & Alan J. Moskowitz & William Whang, 1999. "Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 191-201.
    4. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740.
    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.
    6. Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost-Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252.
    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:9:y:2000:i:4:p:327-335. 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.