IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Navigating time and uncertainty in health technology appraisal: would a map help?

Listed author(s):
  • Christopher McCabe


    (School of Community Based Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada)

  • Richard Edlin

    (School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand)

  • Peter Hall

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom)

Health care systems are increasingly under pressure to provide funding for innovative technologies. These technologies tend to be characterized by their potential to make valued contributions to patient health in areas of relative unmet need, high acquisition costs and great uncertainty in the evidence base on their actual impact on health. Decision makers are increasingly interested in linking reimbursement strategies to the degree of uncertainty in the evidence base and as a result, reimbursement for innovative technologies is frequently linked to some form of patient access or risk sharing scheme. However, current methods of economic evaluation provide only highly aggregate information on the distribution of risk between payers, patents and manufacturers. Reimbursement agencies would benefit from more detailed information on how uncertainty is distributed between costs and benefits; and over the short, medium and long term; to facilitate the assessment of the fairness of risk sharing under alternative payment strategies. In this paper we introduce the Net Benefit Probability Map as a method for providing decision makers with a less aggregate description of the distribution of costs, benefits and uncertainty over time, using data that is generated by standard probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We then show how it can be useful to decision makers considering (a) Only with Research Reimbursement decisions; (b) the use of differential discount rates; and (c) Patient access schemes.

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:
File Function: First version, 2012
Download Restriction: The working paper can be downloaded from the web site of the Academic Unit of Health Economics. See 'Note'. This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in Pharmacoeconomics, 2013, 31(9), pp.731-7.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1201.

in new window

Length: 15 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Publication status: Published in final form in Pharmacoeconomics, 2013, 31(9), pp.731-7.
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1201
Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page:

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.:

in new window

  1. Peter Hall & Claire Hulme & Christopher McCabe & Yemi Oluboyede & Jeff Round & David A Cameron, 2010. "Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab for early breast cancer:A UK perspective considering long-term toxicity and pattern of recurrence," Working Papers 1001, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
  2. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
  3. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  4. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Anthony Culyer & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier, 2006. "Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 1-4.
  5. Peter S Hall & Richard Edlin & Samer Kharroubi & Walter Gregory & Christopher McCabe, 2011. "Expected Net Present Value of Sample Information: from burden to investment," Working Papers 1101, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
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:lee:wpaper:1201. 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: (Judy Wright)

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.