Cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract: Limits on health-care resources mandate that resource-allocation decisions be guided by considerations of cost in relation to expected benefits. In cost-effectiveness analysis, the ratio of net health-care costs to net health benefits provides an index by which priorities may be set. Quality-of-life concerns, including both adverse and beneficial effects of therapy, may be incorporated in the calculation of health benefits as adjustments to life expectancy. The timing of future benefits and costs may be accounted for by the appropriate use of discounting. Current decisions must inevitably be based on imperfect information, but sensitivity analysis can increase the level of confidence in some decisions while suggesting areas where further research may be valuable in guiding others. Analyses should be adaptable to the needs of various health-care decision makers, including planners, administrators and providers.

Abstract: Objective: To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. Participants: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). Evidence: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. Consensus process: The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. Conclusions: The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.

Abstract: Objective. —To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. Participants. —The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). Evidence. —The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. Consensus Process. —The panel met 11 times during 21/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. Conclusions. —The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" costeffectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively. PARTICIPANTS The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). EVIDENCE The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes. CONSENSUS PROCESS The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years with PHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization. CONCLUSIONS The panel's recommendations define a \"reference case\" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.