Jeffrey S Hoch1, Carolyn S Dewa. 1. Department of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario. hochj@smh.toronto.on.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the main types of economic evaluation techniques. METHOD: To examine the strengths and limitations of different types of economic evaluations, we used a hypothetical example to review the reasoning underlying each method and to illustrate when it is appropriate to use each method. RESULTS: The choice of economic evaluation method reflects a decision about what should represent "success" and how success should be valued. Measures of benefit and cost must be considered systematically and simultaneously. Claiming that a new treatment is cost-effective requires making a value judgment based on the personal beliefs of the claimant. Even when cost and effect data are objective, a verdict of cost-effective is subjective. The conclusions of an economic study can change significantly, depending on which patient outcome is used to measure success. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians must be sure that important patient outcomes are not excluded from economic evaluations. Economic evaluation is a process designed to produce an estimate rather than a decision. New treatment can be more costly and still be cost-effective (if the extra benefit is valued more than the extra cost to produce it). However, since economic evaluation does not explicitly consider a decision maker's available budget, a new treatment can be deemed cost-effective but too expensive to approve.
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the main types of economic evaluation techniques. METHOD: To examine the strengths and limitations of different types of economic evaluations, we used a hypothetical example to review the reasoning underlying each method and to illustrate when it is appropriate to use each method. RESULTS: The choice of economic evaluation method reflects a decision about what should represent "success" and how success should be valued. Measures of benefit and cost must be considered systematically and simultaneously. Claiming that a new treatment is cost-effective requires making a value judgment based on the personal beliefs of the claimant. Even when cost and effect data are objective, a verdict of cost-effective is subjective. The conclusions of an economic study can change significantly, depending on which patient outcome is used to measure success. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians must be sure that important patient outcomes are not excluded from economic evaluations. Economic evaluation is a process designed to produce an estimate rather than a decision. New treatment can be more costly and still be cost-effective (if the extra benefit is valued more than the extra cost to produce it). However, since economic evaluation does not explicitly consider a decision maker's available budget, a new treatment can be deemed cost-effective but too expensive to approve.
Authors: M Dieng; A E Cust; N A Kasparian; P Butow; D S J Costa; S W Menzies; G J Mann; R L Morton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daniel Krewski; Margit Westphal; Melvin E Andersen; Gregory M Paoli; Weihsueh A Chiu; Mustafa Al-Zoughool; Maxine C Croteau; Lyle D Burgoon; Ila Cote Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 9.031