| 1. |
- Johannesson, Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Incorporating Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis : Implications for the Cost-Effectiveness of the Treatment of Hypertension
- 1997
-
Ingår i: Medical decision making. - : SAGE. - 1552-681X .- 0272-989X. ; 17:4, s. 382-389
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It has been shown that the difference between consumption and production during life years gained should be included as a cost in cost-effectiveness analysis. In this study the authors estimate the impact of including these future costs on the cost-effective ness of the treatment of hypertension in Sweden. The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained changes little among young men and women due to the addition of future costs, but increases by about $14,000 for middle-aged men and women and about $27,000 for older men and women. When future costs are not included, the cost per QALY gained is generally lowest among older men and women, but when future costs are included, the cost per QALY gained is generally lowest among middle-aged men and women. The authors conclude that the total resource consequences of changes in mortality should be routinely considered in cost-effectiveness analyses. Key words: Cost-effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; costs; societal per spective. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:382-389)
|
|
| 2. |
- Meltzer, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Inconsistencies in the "Societal Perspective" on Costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Medical decision making. - : SAGE. - 1552-681X .- 0272-989X. ; 19:4, s. 371-377
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A key recommendation of the recent Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Med icine was that cost-effectiveness analyses be carried out from a societal perspective. The authors show that two of the Panel's recommendations concerning costs are not consistent with a societal perspective, and how to correct those inconsistencies. In its recommendations concerning costs resulting from morbidity, the Panel advises ex cluding lost income from costs in the belief that individuals take income changes into account when they respond to the quality-of-life questions that are used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). It is shown that even if individuals do consider income changes in responding to these quality-of-life questions, this recommendation would seriously underestimate production losses due to morbidity, since individuals do not bear a major part of lost production. In its recommendations concerning costs resulting from mortality, the Panel does not require that health care costs for "unre lated" illness and non-health care consumption and production during added life years be included in the Reference Case. It is shown that omitting these costs will seriously distort comparisons of programs at different ages and favor programs that extend life over those that improve quality of life. This can be corrected by including total con sumption minus production in added life-years among costs. Key words: cost-effec tiveness analysis; societal perspective; public policy; resource allocation; Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:371-377)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Meltzer, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis
- 1998
-
Ingår i: Health economics. - : Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company. - 1099-1050 .- 1057-9230. ; 7:1, s. 1-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Cost-effectiveness analysis has become the dominant method for economic evaluations of healthcare. Two papers estimating the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Denmark [1] and the UK [2] appear in this issue of Health Economics. In this editorial we discuss two methodological issues in relation to these studies. We first discuss what costs should be included in cost-effectiveness analysis. This is followed by a section about the decision rule of cost-effectiveness analysis. The editorial ends with some concluding remarks.
|
|
