This article has a correction
Please see: Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis
- Joshua A Salomon, assistant professor (jsalomon@hsph.harvard.edu)1,
- Milton C Weinstein, Henry J Kaiser professor of health policy and management2,
- Sue J Goldie, associate professor2
- 1 Department of Population and International Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, 9 Bow Street, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
- 2 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston MA 02115, USA
- Correspondence to: J A Salomon
- Accepted 28 June 2004
Introduction
Cost effectiveness analysis provides a tool for evaluating allocation of resources by characterising different healthcare interventions in terms of the extra cost per added unit of health benefit (box 1).1 Such analyses are being used increasingly to set national and international health priorities. The UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for example, is charged with guiding decisions on use of new and existing technologies in the NHS, based in part on cost effectiveness considerations.2 3 In recent years innovation in healthcare technology has occurred at an unprecedented pace for some problems, with new options rapidly supplanting existing interventions.4 We explore how cost effectiveness analysis could be extended to reflect evolving technologies, and how accounting explicitly for future treatment prospects might affect a typical analysis, using treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as an example.
Box 1: Cost effectiveness analysis
The basic principle of a cost effectiveness analysis is that all consequences of decisions should be identified, measured, and valued. Cost effectiveness analysis provides a formal framework for comparing the relation between the health and economic consequences of different healthcare interventions. The results are summarised as an incremental cost effectiveness ratio. In this ratio, the net change in health outcomes associated with a particular strategy (compared with an alternative) is included in the denominator, typically expressed as quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and the net change in costs or resource use with a particular strategy (compared with an alternative) is included in the numerator. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for a strategy is calculated in reference to the next most effective option, excluding strategies that are dominated (those with higher costs and lower benefits than …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012