Literature DB >> 27374115

Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal.

Alec Morton1, Amanda I Adler2, David Bell3, Andrew Briggs4, Werner Brouwer5, Karl Claxton6, Neil Craig7, Alastair Fischer8, Peter McGregor1, Pieter van Baal5.   

Abstract

In this editorial, we consider the vexing issue of 'unrelated future costs' (for example, the costs of caring for people with dementia or kidney failure after preventing their deaths from a heart attack). The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance is not to take such costs into account in technology appraisals. However, standard appraisal practice involves modelling the benefits of those unrelated technologies. We argue that there is a sound principled reason for including both the costs and benefits of unrelated care. Changing this practice would have material consequences for decisions about reimbursing particular technologies, and we urge future research to understand this better.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost effectiveness analysis; costing; economic analysis; health technology assessment; unrelated future costs

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27374115     DOI: 10.1002/hec.3366

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; James Lomas; Simon Walker; Tracey Young
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  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

3.  Future unrelated medical costs need to be considered in cost effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Pieter van Baal; Alec Morton; David Meltzer; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-02

4.  After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?

Authors:  Mark Sculpher; Stephen Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Future Offspring Costs in Economic Evaluation.

Authors:  Evelyn Verbeke; Jeroen Luyten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  How to Appropriately Extrapolate Costs and Utilities in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Laura Bojke; Andrea Manca; Miqdad Asaria; Ronan Mahon; Shijie Ren; Stephen Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of S-1 therapy for first-line metastatic breast cancer treatment in Japan: results from the randomized phase III SELECT BC trial.

Authors:  Takeru Shiroiwa; Takashi Fukuda; Kojiro Shimozuma; Mitsuko Mouri; Yasuhiro Hagiwara; Takuya Kawahara; Shozo Ohsumi; Yasuo Hozumi; Yoshiaki Sagara; Yasuo Ohashi; Hirofumi Mukai
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Estimating comparable English healthcare costs for multiple diseases and unrelated future costs for use in health and public health economic modelling.

Authors:  Adam D M Briggs; Peter Scarborough; Jane Wolstenholme
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Which Costs Matter? Costs Included in Economic Evaluation and their Impact on Decision Uncertainty for Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  James Lomas; Miqdad Asaria; Laura Bojke; Chris P Gale; Gerry Richardson; Simon Walker
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2018-12

10.  Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future.

Authors:  Linda M de Vries; Pieter H M van Baal; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.