Literature DB >> 18767895

Estimating 'costs' for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Alec Miners1.   

Abstract

Since 1999, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Programme has been charged with producing guidance for the NHS in England and Wales on the appropriate use of new and existing healthcare programmes. Guidance is based on an assessment of a number of factors, including cost effectiveness. The identification, measurement and valuation of costs are important components of any cost-effectiveness analysis. However, working through these steps raises a number of important methodological questions. For example, how should 'future' resource use be estimated, and is there a need to consider all 'future' costs? Given that NICE produces national guidance, should national unit cost data be used to value resources or should local variations in negotiated prices be taken into account? This paper was initially prepared as a briefing paper as part of the process of updating NICE's 2004 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal for a workshop on 'costs'. It outlines the issues that were raised in the original briefing paper and the subsequent questions that were discussed at the workshop.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18767895     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  13 in total

1.  Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions.

Authors:  A H Briggs; A M Gray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-04

Review 2.  Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials.

Authors:  K Johnston; M J Buxton; D R Jones; R Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 3.  The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation.

Authors:  A Briggs; A Gray
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1998-10

4.  Estimating medical care costs under conditions of censoring.

Authors:  M Raikou; A McGuire
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but"? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making.

Authors:  Helen Angela Dakin; Nancy J Devlin; Isaac A O Odeyemi
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 2.980

6.  A dollar is a dollar is a dollar--or is it?

Authors:  Werner B F Brouwer; N Job A van Exel; Rob M P M Baltussen; Frans F H Rutten
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

7.  Costs of screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  M Moskowitz
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Estimating mean total costs in the presence of censoring: a comparative assessment of methods.

Authors:  Tracey A Young
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data.

Authors:  Andrew Briggs; Taane Clark; Jane Wolstenholme; Philip Clarke
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer.

Authors:  N W Calvert; A B Morgan; J W F Catto; F C Hamdy; R L Akehurst; P Mouncey; S Paisley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-01-13       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  9 in total

1.  The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations.

Authors:  Sinaa A Al Aqeel; Mohammed Al-Sultan
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  NICE Methodology for Technology Appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted?

Authors:  Louise Longworth; Carole Longson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  NICE's 2008 Methods Guide: sensible consolidation or opportunities missed?

Authors:  Mark Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Authors:  Julia Earnshaw; Gavin Lewis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  [Cost of illness of age-related macular degeneration. Systematic review on the development of a costs diary].

Authors:  J Gibbert; D Müller; S Fauser; S Stock
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Methods to construct a step-by-step beginner's guide to decision analytic cost-effectiveness modeling.

Authors:  Tamlyn Rautenberg; Claire Hulme; Richard Edlin
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2016-10-11

7.  Photodynamic versus white light-guided treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: a study protocol for a randomised trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Zafer Tandogdu; Rebecca Lewis; Anne Duncan; Steven Penegar; Alison McDonald; Luke Vale; Jing Shen; John D Kelly; Robert Pickard; James N Dow; Craig Ramsay; Hugh Mostafid; Paramananthan Mariappan; Ghulam Nabi; Joanne Creswell; Henry Lazarowicz; John McGrath; Ernest Taylor; Emma Clark; Graeme Maclennan; John Norrie; Emma Hall; Rakesh Heer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Authors:  Chao Cai; Ismaeel Yunusa; Ahmad Tarhini
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01

9.  Tranexamic acid for treatment of women with post-partum haemorrhage in Nigeria and Pakistan: a cost-effectiveness analysis of data from the WOMAN trial.

Authors:  Bernadette Li; Alec Miners; Haleema Shakur; Ian Roberts
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 38.927

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.