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

The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development

  • Elisabeth Fenwick

    ()

    (Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York; Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

  • Karl Claxton

    ()

    (Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York; Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

  • Mark Sculpher

    ()

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

In a budget constrained healthcare system the decision to invest in strategies to improve the implementation of cost-effective technologies must be made alongside decisions regarding investment in the technologies themselves and investment in further research. This paper presents a single, unified framework that simultaneously addresses the problem of allocating funds between these separate but linked activities. The framework presents a simple 4 state world where both information and implementation can be either at the current level or ‘perfect’. Through this framework it is possible to determine the maximum return to further research and an upper bound on the value of adopting implementation strategies. The framework is illustrated through case studies of health care technologies selected from those previously considered by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Through the case studies, several key factors that influence the expected values of perfect information and perfect implementation are identified. These factors include the maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio, the level of uncertainty surrounding the adoption decision, the expected net benefits associated with the technologies, the current level of implementation and the size of the eligible population. Previous methods for valuing implementation strategies have confused the value of research and the value of implementation. This framework demonstrates that the value of information and the value of implementation can be examined separately but simultaneously in a single framework. This can usefully inform policy decisions about investment in healthcare services, further research and adopting implementation strategies which are likely to differ between technologies.

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://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/rp5_value_of_implementation_and_the_value_of_information.pdf
File Function: First version, 2005
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre for Health Economics, University of York in its series Working Papers with number 005cherp.

as
in new window

Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:5cherp
Contact details of provider: Postal: York Y010 5DD
Phone: (01904) 321401
Fax: (0)1904 323759
Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/che
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
  2. Karl Claxton & Simon Eggington & Laura Ginnelly & Susan Griffin & Christopher McCabe & Zoe Philips & Paul Tappenden & Alan Wailoo, 2005. "A Pilot Study of Value of Information Analysis to Support Research Recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence," Working Papers 004cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, . "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
  6. Elizabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs, 2000. "Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessent: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling," Working Papers 179chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  7. Dranove, David, 1998. "Is there underinvestment in R & D about prevention?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 117-127, January.
  8. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787.
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:chy:respap:5cherp. 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: (Frances Sharp)

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.