Skip to main content
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis

A Case for Excluding Dialysis Costs

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In many jurisdictions, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) plays an important role in determining drug coverage and reimbursement and, therefore, has the potential to impact patient access. Health economic guidelines recommend the inclusion of future costs related to the intervention of interest within CEAs but provide little guidance regarding the definition of ‘related’. In the case of CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis but do not impact the need for or the intensity of dialysis, the determination of the relatedness of future dialysis costs to the therapy of interest is particularly ambiguous. The uncertainty as to whether dialysis costs are related or unrelated in these circumstances has led to inconsistencies in the conduct of CEAs for such products, with dialysis costs included in some analyses while excluded in others. Due to the magnitude of the cost of dialysis, whether or not dialysis costs are included in CEAs of such therapies has substantial implications for the results of such analyses, often meaning the difference between a therapy being deemed cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are excluded) or not cost effective (in instances where dialysis costs are included).

This paper explores the issues and implications surrounding the inclusion of dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of dialysis patients but do not impact the need for dialysis. Relevant case studies clearly demonstrate that, regardless of the clinical benefits of a life-extending intervention for dialysis patients, and due to the high cost of dialysis, the inclusion of dialysis costs in the analysis essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio. This raises the significant risk that dialysis patients may be denied access to interventions that are cost effective in other populations due solely to the high background cost of dialysis itself.

Finally, the paper presents a case for excluding dialysis costs in CEAs of therapies that extend the lives of patients receiving dialysis but do not impact the need for dialysis. The argument is founded on the following: (i) health economic guidelines imply that dialysis costs are unrelated to such therapies and therefore should not be included in CEAs of such therapies; (ii) the high cost and cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dialysis place an unreasonable and insurmountable barrier to demonstrating the cost effectiveness of such therapies, particularly since the decision to fund dialysis has already been made; and (iii) current clinical and reimbursement practices include the use of such therapies for patients with CKD receiving dialysis. We conclude that the exclusion of dialysis costs in such cases is methodologically correct given current health economic guidelines and is consistent with current practices regarding the treatment of dialysis patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, et al. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997 Feb; 16 (1): 33–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee RH. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 2008 Jul; 27 (4): 809–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16 (1): 1–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar N. On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Health Econ 2008; 17: 579–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the PBAC. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 1995 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pubs-pharmpac-section3.htm [Accessed 2011 Feb 25].

  8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2011 Feb 25].

  9. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd rev. ed. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Guidelines_in_Sweden.pdf [Accessed 2011 Feb 25].

  11. Brouwer W, Rutten F, Koopmanschap M. Costing in economic evaluations. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 86–90.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hunink MGM, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, et al. Constrained resources. In: Hunink MGM, Glasziou PP, Siegel JE, et al. Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001: 255–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, et al. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nyman JA. Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2004; 13: 417–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richardson JR, Olsen JA. In defence of societal sovereignty: a comment on Nyman ‘the inclusion of survivor consumption in CUA’. Health Econ 2006; 15: 311–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gandjour A. Consumption costs and earnings during added years of life: a reply to Nyman. Health Econ 2006; 15: 315–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. USRDS Coordinating Center. Annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2009.

  19. Lee CP, Chertow GM, Zenios SA. An empiric estimate of the value of life: updating the renal dialysis cost-effectiveness standard. Value Health 2009 Jan–Feb; 12 (1): 80–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Investing in health for economic development. Geneva: WHO, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000 Jul; 20 (3): 332–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gillick MR. Medicare coverage for technological innovations: time for new criteria? N Engl J Med 2004 May 20; 350 (21): 2199–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004 Jul 24; 329 (7459): 224–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007 Jan; 12 (1): 56–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ 2008 Feb 2; 336 (7638): 251–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001 Dec 1; 323 (7324): 1300–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004 May; 13 (5): 437–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Clement FM, Klarenbach S, Tonelli M, et al. An economic evaluation of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2010 Dec; 56 (6): 1050–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taylor MJ, Elgazzar HA, Chaplin S, et al. An economic evaluation of sevelamer in patients new to dialysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2008 Feb; 24 (2): 601–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wong G, Howard K, Chapman JR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in women on dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2008 Nov; 52 (5): 916–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Manns B, Klarenbach S, Lee H, et al. Economic evaluation of sevelamer in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007 Oct; 22 (10): 2867–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Quinn RR, Naimark DMJ, Oliver MJ, et al. Should hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation undergo systemic anticoagulation? A cost-utility analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2007 Sep; 50 (3): 421–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet for secondary hyperparathyroidism in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2007 May; 11 (18): iii, xi-xiii, 1–167.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mokrzycki MH, Singhal A. Cost-effectiveness of three strategies of managing tunnelled, cuffed haemodialysis catheters in clinically mild or asymptomatic bacteraemias. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002 Dec; 17 (12): 2196–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

DM discloses relationships for consulting, honoraria and/or grants with Janssen, Amgen, Genzyme, Takeda, Shire and Baxter. PM discloses relationships for consulting, honoraria and/or grants with Amgen, Biovail, BMS, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ortho-Biotech, Merck/Schering, Sanofi-Aventis, Abbott/Solvay, Astra Zeneca, GSK and Novo Nordisk. ED was employed by Genzyme Corporation at the time research for this paper was conducted.

Each author was involved in developing content for the paper, reviewing drafts and approving the final, submitted paper. DG acts as guarantor for the overall content and had the idea for the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Bernard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grima, D.T., Bernard, L.M., Dunn, E.S. et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Therapies for Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Dialysis. PharmacoEconomics 30, 981–989 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11599390-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11599390-000000000-00000

Keywords

Navigation