Literature DB >> 15127422

Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis?

John A Nyman1.   

Abstract

Survivor costs are those costs associated with a treatment because it extends the patient's life. A controversy exists regarding whether survivor consumption costs should be included in cost-utility analyses. The present paper uses this controversy to motivate a general reexamination of what costs to include in cost-utility analyses. Rather than the ad hoc inclusion rules currently used--a causal relationship between the intervention and the costs, and a proscription on double counting--this paper suggests three inclusion principles based on standard welfare economics. Thus, costs should be (1) included if they represent resources that directly produce the utility that is being measured in the denominator of the cost-utility ratio, (2) excluded if they represent resources that produce utility that is not being measured in the denominator, even though the costs are causally associated with the intervention, and (3) included if they represent resources consumed that are causally related to the intervention, but that have no counterveiling utility gains. These principles suggest important changes in how we account for recuperation time and unrelated medical care. They also suggest that survival consumption costs and earnings be excluded from existing cost-utility analyses. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15127422     DOI: 10.1002/hec.850

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  19 in total

1.  Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations.

Authors:  Pieter H M van Baal; Albert Wong; Laurentius C J Slobbe; Johan J Polder; Werner B F Brouwer; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  [Economic aspects of prevention].

Authors:  H H König; S Riedel-Heller
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 3.  Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models.

Authors:  Kristian Bolin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions?

Authors:  David R Rappange; Pieter H M van Baal; N Job A van Exel; Talitha L Feenstra; Frans F H Rutten; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Including indirect medical care costs from survivor years of life in economic evaluations.

Authors:  John A Nyman; Hawre J Jalal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Pharmacoeconomic guidelines should prescribe inclusion of indirect medical costs! A response to Grima et Al.

Authors:  Pieter van Baal; David Meltzer; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Considering productivity loss in cost-effectiveness analysis: a new approach.

Authors:  Afschin Gandjour
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-11

8.  From Good to Better: New Dutch Guidelines for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare.

Authors:  Matthijs Versteegh; Saskia Knies; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  The cost effectiveness of newer epilepsy treatments: a review of the literature on partial-onset seizures.

Authors:  Kristian Bolin; Lars Forsgren
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a case for excluding dialysis costs.

Authors:  Daniel T Grima; Lisa M Bernard; Elizabeth S Dunn; Philip A McFarlane; David C Mendelssohn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.