The Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine

JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 01/1997; 276(14):1172-1177. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540140060028

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.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The value of reducing health and mortality risks is often measured using value per statistical life (VSL) or one of several life-year measures (e.g., life years, quality-adjusted life years, disability-adjusted life years). I derive the utility function that is admissible when preferences for health and longevity, conditional on wealth, are consistent with any life-year measure (LYM) and examine the implications for marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for increases in health, longevity, and current-period survival probability. I conclude that marginal WTP for any LYM is decreasing and that VSL is increasing in the LYM. These results imply that cost-effectiveness analysis using a fixed monetary value per LYM is not consistent with economic welfare theory and that the benefit of a health improvement cannot be calculated by multiplying the change in a LYM by a constant.
    Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12/2013; 47(3):311-325. DOI:10.1007/s11166-013-9178-4 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of delivering alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in emergency departments (ED) when compared to outpatient medical settings. A probabilistic decision analytic tree categorized patients into health states. Utility weights and social costs were assigned to each health state. Health outcome measures were the proportion of patients not drinking above threshold levels at follow-up, the proportion of patients transitioning from above threshold levels at baseline to abstinent or below threshold levels at follow-up, and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Expected costs under a provider perspective were the marginal costs of SBIRT, and under a societal perspective were the sum of SBIRT cost per patient and the change in social costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed. When considering provider costs only, compared to outpatient, SBIRT in ED cost $8.63 less, generated 0.005 more QALYs per patient, and resulted in 13.8% more patients drinking below threshold levels. Sensitivity analyses in which patients were assumed to receive a fixed number of treatment sessions that met clinical sites' guidelines made SBIRT more expensive in ED than outpatient; the ED remained more effective. In this sensitivity analysis, the ED was the most cost-effective setting if decision makers were willing to pay more than $1500 per QALY gained. Alcohol SBIRT generates costs savings and improves health in both ED and outpatient settings. EDs provide better effectiveness at a lower cost and greater social cost reductions than outpatient. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.01.003 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source