51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis

      , , ,
      Health Economics
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

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

          Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues.

          Economists have often treated the objective of health services as being the maximization of the QALYs gained, irrespective of how the gains are distributed. In a cross section of Australians such a policy of distributive neutrality received: (a) very little support when health benefits to young people compete with health benefits to the elderly; (b) only moderate support when those who can become a little better compete with those who can become much better; (c) only moderate support when smokers compete with non smokers; (d) some support when young children compete with newborns; and (e) wide spread support when parents of dependent children compete with people without children. Overall, the views of the study population were strongly egalitarian. A policy of health benefit maximization received very limited support when the consequence is a loss of equity and access to services for the elderly and for people with a limited potential for improving their health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cost effectiveness of chemotherapy for pulmonary tuberculosis in three sub-Saharan African countries.

            The value of programmes to control pulmonary tuberculosis in developing countries remains the subject of debate. We have examined the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy programmes for the control of pulmonary sputum-smear-positive tuberculosis in Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania. Effective cure rates of 86-90% were achieved with short-course chemotherapy and of 60-66% with standard chemotherapy. The average incremental costs per year of life saved were US $1.7-2.1 for short-course chemotherapy with hospital admission, $2.4-3.4 for standard chemotherapy with hospital admission, $0.9-1.1 for ambulatory short-course chemotherapy, and $0.9-1.3 for ambulatory standard chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for smear-positive tuberculosis is thus cheaper than other cost-effective health interventions such as immunisation against measles and oral rehydration therapy. Because the greatest benefit of chemotherapy is reduced transmission of the bacillus, treating HIV-seropositive, tuberculosis smear-positive patients would be only slightly less cost-effective than treating HIV-seronegative, tuberculosis-smear-positive patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Oregon experiment: the role of cost-benefit analysis in the allocation of Medicaid funds.

              The state of Oregon decided to cover all potentially eligible Medicaid citizens to 100% of poverty. Previously, Oregon had covered persons up to 67% of poverty. In order to keep overall program costs in check. Oregon decided to limit the number of services that its Medicaid program would cover. Oregon's normative choice was to contain program costs by covering all eligible persons up to 100% of poverty, while at the same time uniformly limiting access to certain services for everyone in the overall group of eligible persons. The state developed a prioritization list of medical services and priced the components on the list. The amount of money ultimately available for the Medicaid program was a political decision informed by data about the cost of different services and influenced by the priorities set through an independent process of priority-setting. Physicians were asked to determine what works medically, how well it works, and what benefits accrue to patients. Recognizing that physician perspectives on efficacy might vary from patients' perspectives on valuation of benefits, Oregon's planners developed a method for valuing medical outcomes that stemmed from particular medical interventions. This blend of medical fact and value to patients allowed for comparing valuations by introducing cost considerations. Condition-treatment (CT) pairs linked a medical condition with one or more courses of treatment. The goal was to determine the likely incremental medical benefit from a given treatment. In addition, Oregon developed a Quality-of-Well-Being scale to determine the net patient benefit from medical intervention and used a telephone survey to value that net benefit. A cost-benefit ratio was derived, and a prioritization of CT pairs was developed. The article analyzes and evaluates Oregon's use of cost-benefit calculations in the allocation of Medicaid funds, noting that Oregon itself backed away from many of the implications of its cost-benefit analysis and that the Americans with Disabilities Act has constrained use of quality-of-life judgments in Medicaid resource allocation decision-making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Economics
                Health Econ.
                Wiley
                1057-9230
                1099-1050
                April 2000
                April 2000
                : 9
                : 3
                : 235-251
                Article
                10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<235::AID-HEC502>3.0.CO;2-O
                10790702
                d05d6713-7135-49e2-aae4-5234c1e501ce
                © 2000

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article