55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 2 , WHO-CHOICE
      Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.

          The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.

          Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease risk.

          Cardiovascular disease accounts for much morbidity and mortality in developed countries and is becoming increasingly important in less developed regions. Systolic blood pressure above 115 mm Hg accounts for two-thirds of strokes and almost half of ischaemic heart disease cases, and cholesterol concentrations exceeding 3.8 mmol/L for 18% and 55%, respectively. We report estimates of the population health effects, and costs of selected interventions to reduce the risks associated with high cholesterol concentrations and blood pressure in areas of the world with differing epidemiological profiles. Effect sizes were derived from systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and the effect on health outcomes projected over time for populations with differing age, sex, and epidemiological profiles. Incidence data from estimates of burden of disease were used in a four-state longitudinal population model to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted and patients treated. Costs were taken from previous publications, or estimated by local experts, in 14 regions. Non-personal health interventions, including government action to stimulate a reduction in the salt content of processed foods, are cost-effective ways to limit cardiovascular disease and could avert over 21 million DALYs per year worldwide. Combination treatment for people whose risk of a cardiovascular event over the next 10 years is above 35% is also cost effective leading to substantial additional health benefits by averting an additional 63 million DALYs per year worldwide. The combination of personal and non-personal health interventions evaluated here could lower the global incidence of cardiovascular events by as much as 50%.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis

            The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness.

              We gathered information on the cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in the United States from publicly available economic analyses. "Life-saving interventions" were defined as any behavioral and/or technological strategy that reduces the probability of premature death among a specified target population. We defined cost-effectiveness as the net resource costs of an intervention per year of life saved. To improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness ratios arrived at with diverse methods, we established fixed definitional goals and revised published estimates, when necessary and feasible, to meet these goals. The 587 interventions identified ranged from those that save more resources than they cost, to those costing more than 10 billion dollars per year of life saved. Overall, the median intervention costs $42,000 per life-year saved. The median medical intervention cost $19,000/life-year; injury reduction $48,000/life-year; and toxin control $2,800,000/life-year. Cost/life-year ratios and bibliographic references for more than 500 life-saving interventions are provided.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-7547
                2003
                19 December 2003
                : 1
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Stop TB Programme (STB), HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria cluster (HTM), World Health Organization
                [2 ]Department of Evidence for Health Policy, Evidence and Information for Policy, World Health Organization
                Article
                1478-7547-1-8
                10.1186/1478-7547-1-8
                320499
                14687420
                24d5c51f-b941-4299-8d16-a13276f80cd3
                Copyright © 2003 Hutubessy et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
                History
                : 6 May 2003
                : 19 December 2003
                Categories
                Methodology

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article