A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: Think incremental not average

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To explain how to correctly report the results from a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Methods: Results were used from a hypothetical clinical trial to illustrate how different ways of reporting economic results affect both presentation of findings and formulation of conclusions. To provide context, we reviewed some high-profile exchanges in the scientific literature. Results: The critical issue with which decision makers must grapple involves the trade-offs introduced by a new treatment or intervention. Specifically, are decision makers willing to pay the additional cost for the additional outcomes? This question cannot be considered without estimates of the additional cost and additional outcomes. Correct cost-effectiveness measures, such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the incremental net benefit, address this issue. Conclusions: As decision makers face the challenge of balancing increasing health care demand with cost containment, it will be crucial to identify cost-effective ways of providing care. Health care providers and other decision makers should not be misled by the results of improperly reported CEAs. Decisions around adoption of pharmaceuticals or implementation of new programs or interventions may be affected by which cost-effectiveness summary measure is reported. Thus consumers of CEA must have a basic understanding of why different methods give different results, and how the results should be interpreted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)267-274
Number of pages8
JournalCanadian Journal of Psychiatry
Volume53
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Literature
Cost Control
Health Personnel
Economics
Clinical Trials
Delivery of Health Care
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
  • Mental health economics
  • Net benefit regression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis : Think incremental not average. / Hoch, Jeffrey S; Dewa, Carolyn S.

In: Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 53, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 267-274.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{2d6e28d005f0425f806a79e0e8c0d41f,
title = "A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: Think incremental not average",
abstract = "Objective: To explain how to correctly report the results from a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Methods: Results were used from a hypothetical clinical trial to illustrate how different ways of reporting economic results affect both presentation of findings and formulation of conclusions. To provide context, we reviewed some high-profile exchanges in the scientific literature. Results: The critical issue with which decision makers must grapple involves the trade-offs introduced by a new treatment or intervention. Specifically, are decision makers willing to pay the additional cost for the additional outcomes? This question cannot be considered without estimates of the additional cost and additional outcomes. Correct cost-effectiveness measures, such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the incremental net benefit, address this issue. Conclusions: As decision makers face the challenge of balancing increasing health care demand with cost containment, it will be crucial to identify cost-effective ways of providing care. Health care providers and other decision makers should not be misled by the results of improperly reported CEAs. Decisions around adoption of pharmaceuticals or implementation of new programs or interventions may be affected by which cost-effectiveness summary measure is reported. Thus consumers of CEA must have a basic understanding of why different methods give different results, and how the results should be interpreted.",
keywords = "Cost-effectiveness analysis, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Mental health economics, Net benefit regression",
author = "Hoch, {Jeffrey S} and Dewa, {Carolyn S}",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "267--274",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Psychiatry",
issn = "0706-7437",
publisher = "Canadian Psychiatric Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis

T2 - Think incremental not average

AU - Hoch, Jeffrey S

AU - Dewa, Carolyn S

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Objective: To explain how to correctly report the results from a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Methods: Results were used from a hypothetical clinical trial to illustrate how different ways of reporting economic results affect both presentation of findings and formulation of conclusions. To provide context, we reviewed some high-profile exchanges in the scientific literature. Results: The critical issue with which decision makers must grapple involves the trade-offs introduced by a new treatment or intervention. Specifically, are decision makers willing to pay the additional cost for the additional outcomes? This question cannot be considered without estimates of the additional cost and additional outcomes. Correct cost-effectiveness measures, such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the incremental net benefit, address this issue. Conclusions: As decision makers face the challenge of balancing increasing health care demand with cost containment, it will be crucial to identify cost-effective ways of providing care. Health care providers and other decision makers should not be misled by the results of improperly reported CEAs. Decisions around adoption of pharmaceuticals or implementation of new programs or interventions may be affected by which cost-effectiveness summary measure is reported. Thus consumers of CEA must have a basic understanding of why different methods give different results, and how the results should be interpreted.

AB - Objective: To explain how to correctly report the results from a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Methods: Results were used from a hypothetical clinical trial to illustrate how different ways of reporting economic results affect both presentation of findings and formulation of conclusions. To provide context, we reviewed some high-profile exchanges in the scientific literature. Results: The critical issue with which decision makers must grapple involves the trade-offs introduced by a new treatment or intervention. Specifically, are decision makers willing to pay the additional cost for the additional outcomes? This question cannot be considered without estimates of the additional cost and additional outcomes. Correct cost-effectiveness measures, such as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the incremental net benefit, address this issue. Conclusions: As decision makers face the challenge of balancing increasing health care demand with cost containment, it will be crucial to identify cost-effective ways of providing care. Health care providers and other decision makers should not be misled by the results of improperly reported CEAs. Decisions around adoption of pharmaceuticals or implementation of new programs or interventions may be affected by which cost-effectiveness summary measure is reported. Thus consumers of CEA must have a basic understanding of why different methods give different results, and how the results should be interpreted.

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

KW - Mental health economics

KW - Net benefit regression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45249109772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45249109772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 18478830

AN - SCOPUS:45249109772

VL - 53

SP - 267

EP - 274

JO - Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

JF - Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

SN - 0706-7437

IS - 4

ER -