IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/08-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using propensity score methods to analyse individual patient-level cost-effectiveness data from observational studies

Author

Listed:
  • Manca, A
  • Austin, P. C

Abstract

The methodology relating to the statistical analysis of individual patient-level cost-effectiveness data collected alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has evolved dramatically in the last ten years. This body of techniques has been developed and applied mainly in the context of the randomised clinical trial design. There are, however, many situations in which a trial is neither the most suitable nor the most efficient vehicle for the evaluation. This paper provides a tutorial-like discussion of the ways in which propensity score methods could be used to assist in the analysis of observational individual patient-level cost-effectiveness data. As a motivating example, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PTCA – one year post procedure - in a cohort of individuals who received the intervention within 365 days of their index admission for AMI. The data used for this paper were obtained from the Ontario Myocardial Infarction Database (OMID), linking these with data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program, and Ontario Registered Persons Database (RPDB). We discuss three ways in which propensity score can be used to control for confounding in the estimation of average cost-effectiveness, and provide syntax codes for both propensity score matching and cost-effectiveness modelling.

Suggested Citation

  • Manca, A & Austin, P. C, 2008. "Using propensity score methods to analyse individual patient-level cost-effectiveness data from observational studies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/20, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:08/20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/herc/wp/08_20.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    2. 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.
    3. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    4. 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, December.
    5. Edwin Leuven & Barbara Sianesi, 2003. "PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing," Statistical Software Components S432001, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 01 Feb 2018.
    6. Nigel Rice & Andrew Jones, 1997. "Multilevel models and health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 561-575, November.
    7. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2000. "Evaluation methods for non-experimental data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 21(4), pages 427-468, January.
    10. Barbara Sianesi, 2001. "Propensity score matching," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2001 12, Stata Users Group, revised 23 Aug 2001.
    11. O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, John W., 2004. "On estimators of medical costs with censored data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 615-625, May.
    12. 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, July.
    13. Christopher Taber & Hidehiko Ichimura, 2001. "Propensity-Score Matching with Instrumental Variables," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 119-124, May.
    14. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    15. Coyte, Peter C. & Young, Wendy & Croxford, Ruth, 2000. "Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 907-929, November.
    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. Richard Disney & Eleonora Fischera & Trudy Owens, 2010. "Has the Introduction of Microfinance Crowded-out Informal Loans in Malawi?," Discussion Papers 10/08, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost; cost-effectiveness; propensity score; revascularisation; statistical methods;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:yor:hectdg:08/20. 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: (Jane Rawlings). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.html .

    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.