成本效果可接受曲线与成本效果阈值

成本效果可接受曲线是药物经济学评价不确定性分析中的重要工具。成本效果阈值是药物经济学评价不可缺少的结果比照标准。二者之间有一定关联,但成本效果可接受曲线不能代替成本效果阈值,成本效果阈值的存在可以使成本效果可接受曲线的分析结果更加科学准确。     

从不确定性分析视角看成本效果阈值的应用

目的介绍成本效果平面在不确定性分析中的作用,明确成本效果阈值λ对成本效果平面以及不确定性分析中成本效果可接受曲线、成本效果可接受边界等方法的意义。方法从成本效果平面、成本效果可接受曲线、成本效果可接受边界的基本原理出发,分析成本效果阈值在3种方法中的应用。结果与结论成本效果阈值的设定可以决定成本效果平面中经济性区域的联合密度分布,提高成本效果可接受曲线、成本效果可接受边界等不确定性分析方法的实用性,从而可以更好的为决策制定提供服务。     

从净收益视角探讨成本-效果阈值的意义

目的:旨在从净收益法视角出发,明确成本-效果阈值在药物经济学中的重要意义。方法:分类介绍净收益法的4种情况,从理论方法层面分析4种情况下成本-效果阈值与净收益法的内在联系。结果:净收益法4种情况中的任何一种都要受到成本-效果阈值的影响。结论:净收益法的4种情况均是成本-效果阈值的函数,成本-效果阈值的取值直接决定净收益计算结果。     

影响贴现率选择的关键要素:成本效果阈值

目的:明确成本效果阈值是成本与效果贴现率选择的关键性影响因素,为进一步完善我国的贴现率提供启示。方法:通过介绍贴现率计算的公式推导来分析成本效果阈值如何影响贴现率的选择。结果:当两个时期的成本效果阈值相同时,成本和效果应该使用相同的贴现率;当两个时期的成本效果阈值不同时,应对成本和效果分别选择不同的贴现率进行计算。结论:成本效果阈值是影响成本贴现率与结果贴现率是否同一的关键性因素。     

成本效果阈值确定方法分类研究进展(英文)

成本效果分析在卫生保健领域的决策制定当中所起的作用越来越重要。成本效果阈值是成本效果分析的重要决策标准。本文将对成本效果阈值的定义进行回顾,并对现有的成本效果阈值确定方法进行分类介绍,同时对这些现有方法各自的优缺点进行比较分析。在预算具有相对灵活性,即易于改变(增加)既定预算的情况下,成本效果阈值的确定方法主要包括:从过去的决策当中推测阈值、将特殊卫生保健项目的ICER值作为成本效果阈值或借鉴其他公共领域中生命/健康的价值、社会意愿支付法、借助人均GDP确定成本效果阈值法、以及经验确定法。在难以改变既定预算限制的情况下,即当预算具有相对固定性时,能够用于确定成本效果阈值的方法包括:影子价格法、机会成本法和阈值寻找者模型法。现有的八种方法具有其各自的优缺点和适用条件,本文对这些现有方法进行介绍和比较分析,以期能够为我国的成本效果阈值确定方法的选择提供信息储备和支持。     

社会意愿支付法确定成本效果阈值的介绍与思考

目的:介绍并分析社会意愿支付法的基本理论,为我国成本效果阈值的确定提供一定的方法论基础。方法:总结社会意愿支付法的优缺点,并与我国实际情况相结合,明确其对我国成本效果阈值确定的借鉴意义。结果:社会意愿支付法有体现民众意愿、随经济发展水平变化等优点、同时在理论角度、实践角度、制度角度以及方法本身角度等方面均存在一定的争议。结论:社会意愿支付法是最常用的成本效果阈值确定方法之一,在理论与实践等方面均有着独特的优势,运用该方法将会对我国的成本效果阈值科学确定起到积极的推进作用。     

对我国成本效果阈值确定方法的思考

目的:对成本效果阈值现有的主要确定方法进行分析,寻找适合我国的阈值确定方法,为我国成本效果阈值的确定及应用奠定基础。方法:通过文献综述的方法,对目前主要的成本效果阈值确定方法进行回顾分析和归纳总结,在此基础上找出适合我国的成本效果阈值确定方法。结果:社会意愿支付法、阈值寻找者模式、人均GDP法均对我国成本效果阈值的确定有重要的借鉴意义。结论:建议以阈值寻找者模式为主、以人均GDP法(社会意愿支付法)为参考来确定我国的成本效果阈值,在寻找我国的成本效果阈值期间,可暂时先借鉴人均GDP法确定的经济性评价标准。     

从多国视角看成本效果阈值的应用现状

目的通过各国成本效果阈值的横向比较,为我国的成本效果阈值设定提供一定的经验与启示。方法归纳总结药物经济学利用程度较高的国家和地区成本效果阈值及其相关规定的现状。结果各国成本效果阈值都不尽相同,成本效果阈值的设定受很多因素的影响。结论不能简单地借鉴国外经验,必须在充分考虑我国具体情况的基础上设定科学合理的成本效果阈值。     

扩展成本效果分析方法介绍及案例分析

目的 通过简要介绍扩展成本效果分析(extended cost-effectiveness analysis,ECEA)方法和两个扩展成本效果分析案例,阐明其应用流程和应用情况,为ECEA在中国的应用提供有益参考。方法 利用文献研究法,搜集、鉴别、整理近年来与ECEA相关的文献资料进行研究。结果 通过ECEA案例研究可以发现,大部分健康干预措施实施后,贫困人口获得的健康收益和财务风险保护等各方面的收益最多。结论 ECEA可以弥补现有药物经济学评价方法的不足,提高卫生资源配置效率,促进卫生事业朝着更稳定、更公平的方向发展,在中国具有广阔的应用前景。     

药物经济学研究中的成本—效果分析与成本—效益分析

药物经济学(Pharmacoeconomics)是近年新兴起的一门学科，涉及经济学、会计学等理论及分析方法。对医药专业人员而言，这门学科尚有许多技术问题值得学习和探讨，例如方案成本的研究角度、分析方法的选择等等。本文着重对药物经济学基础理论作简要的论述，并对分析方法的选择作一探讨。     

The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been using a cost-effectiveness threshold range between pound20 000 and pound30 000 for over 7 years. What the cost-effectiveness threshold represents, what the appropriate level is for NICE to use, and what the other factors are that NICE should consider have all been the subject of much discussion. In this article, we briefly review these questions, provide a critical assessment of NICE's utilization of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold to inform its guidance, and suggest ways in which NICE's utilization of the ICER threshold could be developed to promote the efficient use of health service resources.We conclude that it is feasible and probably desirable to operate an explicit single threshold rather than the current range; the threshold should be seen as a threshold at which 'other' criteria beyond the ICER itself are taken into account; interventions with a large budgetary impact may need to be subject to a lower threshold as they are likely to displace more than the marginal activities; reimbursement at the threshold transfers the full value of an innovation to the manufacturer.Positive decisions above the threshold on the grounds of innovation reduce population health; the value of the threshold should be reconsidered regularly to ensure that it captures the impact of changes in efficiency and budget over time; the use of equity weights to sustain a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold requires knowledge of the equity characteristics of those patients who bear the opportunity cost. Given the barriers to obtaining this knowledge and knowledge about the characteristics of typical beneficiaries of UK NHS care, caution is warranted before accepting claims from special pleaders; uncertainty in the evidence base should not be used to justify a positive recommendation when the ICER is above the threshold. The development of a programme of disinvestment guidance would enable NICE and the NHS to be more confident that the net health benefit of the Technology Appraisal Programme is positive.     

Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is required to consider cost effectiveness when issuing guidance about the use of health technologies within the UK NHS. Cost effectiveness is a means of supporting a system objective of maximizing population health gain from the available budget.There is a range of sources of variation between individuals in disease prognosis, and in the costs and effects of health technologies. It is often possible to explain some of this variation on the basis of the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients. This facilitates subgroup-specific estimates of parameters in decision analytic models and provides a means of assessing heterogeneity in cost effectiveness between different types of patient. Given the objective of the NHS, there is a clear need for NICE, and similar decision makers in other systems, to reflect this heterogeneity by being as specific as possible about the characteristics of the recipients of new treatments.The use of subgroup analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis raises a number of methodological questions that have been given little consideration in the literature. They include a need to define the possible sources of heterogeneity that exist, which extends beyond relative treatment effect (which is the focus of clinical trial analysis) to include, for example, sources relating to baseline event rates. There is also the issue of how heterogeneity in model parameters should be estimated and how uncertainty should be appropriately quantified. A major issue also exists concerning the appropriateness, in terms of equity, of using all or some of the subgroup analyses as a basis of decision making. NICE needed to consider these and other issues when updating its methods guidance.     

Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug therapy

A model for cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis (CBA-CEA) of pharmaceutical intervention is presented, and CBA-CEA research methods reported in the literature are reviewed. The cost versus benefit and the cost effectiveness of drug therapy can be analyzed in societal as well as private terms. Since CBA measures costs and outcomes in monetary terms, it can be used to compare net benefits of all types of interventions. CEA, however, can be used only in comparing alternative interventions that can produce a similar health outcome. Research activities needed for identification of treatment protocols, alternative therapies and their respective outcomes, and resource use are described. Quantification of benefits and costs is discussed and inherent strengths and weaknesses of CBA-CEA are summarized. For the wide variety of research activities involved in CBA-CEA, the expertise of economists, physicians, clinical pharmacists and pharmacologists, epidemiologists, sociologists, and psychologists is needed. Inherent in CBA-CEA for drug therapy are judgments, either by analysts or by policy decision makers, about how to value life, pain, anxiety, and happiness and how to distribute health-care resources. When results of CBA-CEA are presented and interpreted with care, this analysis can be an important tool for policy decision makers.     

Estimating 'costs' for cost-effectiveness analysis

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.     

Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis

This paper describes the key principles of why an assessment of uncertainty and its consequences are critical for the types of decisions that a body such as the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has to make. In doing so, it poses the question of whether formal methods may be useful to NICE and its advisory committees in making such assessments. Broadly, these include the following: (i) should probabilistic sensitivity analysis continue to be recommended as a means to characterize parameter uncertainty; (ii) which methods should be used to represent other sources of uncertainty; (iii) when can computationally expensive models be justified and is computation expense a sufficient justification for failing to express uncertainty; (iv) which summary measures of uncertainty should be used to present the results to decision makers; and (v) should formal methods be recommended to inform the assessment of the need for evidence and the consequences of an uncertain decision for the UK NHS?     

The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis

It has become increasingly popular to carry out cost-effectiveness analyses in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes. Cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the maximisation of the health effects for a given amount of resources. However, many published studies fail to report the results of cost-effectiveness analysis in a way that is consistent with this underlying aim. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis in an easily accessible way for practitioners in the field. A hypothetical example is used to demonstrate the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis, and we also show how to estimate the appropriate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and how to exclude dominated alternatives. It is then shown how fixed budgets or predetermined prices per effectiveness unit can be used as decision rules to maximise health effects and to determine which programmes to implement on the basis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We hope that the article will contribute towards an increased understanding and application of the appropriate decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis, so that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses can be interpreted meaningfully by decision makers.