Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this paper was to critically review the literature on the cost effectiveness of cancer screening interventions, and examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) that may influence government recommendations on cancer screening strategies and funding for mass implementation in the Hong Kong healthcare system.

Methods

We conducted a literature review of cost-effectiveness studies in the Hong Kong population related to cancer screening published up to 2015, through a hand search and database search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID Medline. Binary data on the government’s decisions were obtained from the Cancer Expert Working Group, Department of Health. Mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was used to examine the impact of ICERs on decision making. Using Youden’s index, an optimal ICER threshold value for positive decisions was examined by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

Eight studies reporting 30 cost-effectiveness pairwise comparisons of population-based cancer screening were identified. Most studies reported an ICER for a cancer screening strategy versus a comparator with outcomes in terms of cost per life-years (55.6 %), or cost per quality-adjusted life-years (55.6 %). Among comparisons with a mean ICER of US$102,931 (range 800–715,137), the increase in ICER value by 1000 was associated with decreased odds (odds ratio 0.990, 0.981–0.999; p = 0.033) of a positive recommendation. An optimal ICER value of US$61,600 per effectiveness unit yielded a high sensitivity of 90 % and specificity of 85 % for a positive recommendation. A lower ICER threshold value of below US$8044 per effectiveness unit was detected for a positive funding decision.

Conclusions

Linking published evidence to Government recommendations and practice on cancer screening, ICERs influence decisions on the adoption of health technologies in Hong Kong. The potential ICER threshold for recommendation in Hong Kong may be higher than those of developed countries.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hospital Authority. Drug Advisory Committee. http://www.ha.org.hk/hadf/en-us/Drug-Formulary-Management/Drug-Advisory-Committee. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.

  3. Hospital Authority. HA Drug Formulary. http://www.ha.org.hk/hadf/en-us/Updated-HA-Drug-Formulary/Drug-Formulary. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.

  4. Lau EWL, Leung GM. Is the Hospital Authority’s drug formulary equitable and efficient? Hong Kong Med J. 2008;14(5):416–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. The Cancer Expert Working Group on Cancer Prevention and Screening. http://www.dh.gov.hk/english/pub_rec/pub_rec_lpoi/pub_rec_lpoi.html#Surveillance_and_Epidemiology_Branch. Accessed 6 Jan 2016.

  6. Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(2):165–78. doi:10.1586/14737167.8.2.165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Danzon PM, Towse A, Mulcahy AW. Setting cost-effectiveness thresholds as a means to achieve appropriate drug prices in rich and poor countries. Health Affairs. 2011;30(8):1529–38. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(9):733–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization. Cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE): threshold values for intervention cost-effectiveness by region. http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_levels/en/. Accessed 1 Dec 2015.

  10. Robinson R. Economic evaluation and health care. What does it mean? BMJ. 1993;307(6905):670–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):80. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Department of Health, HKSAR Government. About the Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Programme. http://www.colonscreen.gov.hk/en/colorectal-cancer-screening-pilot-programme/about-the-colorectal-cancer-screening-pilot-programme.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JJ, Leung GM, Woo PP, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong. J Public Health (Oxf). 2004;26(2):130–7. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdh138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong CKH, Lam CLK, Wan YF, Fong DYT. Cost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing. BMC Cancer. 2015;15(1):705. doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1730-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsoi KKF, Ng SSM, Leung MCM, Sung JJY. Cost-effectiveness analysis on screening for colorectal neoplasm and management of colorectal cancer in Asia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28(3):353–63. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03726.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Woo PPS, Kim JJ, Leung GM. What is the most cost-effective population-based cancer screening program for Chinese women? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(6):617–24. doi:10.1200/jco.2006.06.0210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wong IO, Schooling CM, Cowling BJ. Cost-effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening and treatment for gastric cancer in Hong Kong: a decision analytic approach. Hong Kong Med J. 2014;20(Suppl 7):13–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wong IOL, Kuntz KM, Cowling BJ, Lam CLK, Leung GM. Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chinese women. Cancer. 2007;110(4):885–95. doi:10.1002/cncr.22848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wong IOL, Tsang JWH, Cowling BJ, Leung GM. Optimizing resource allocation for breast cancer prevention and care among Hong Kong Chinese women. Cancer. 2012;118(18):4394–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu J. Cervical cancer prevention through cytologic and human papillomavirus DNA screening in Hong Kong Chinese women. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(3 Suppl 3):20–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong MC, Ching JY, Chan VC, Sung JJ. The comparative cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical test vs. colonoscopy. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13568. doi:10.1038/srep13568.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Charokopou M, Majer IM, de Raad J, Broekhuizen S, Postma M, Heeg B. Which factors enhance positive drug reimbursement recommendation in Scotland? A retrospective analysis 2006–2013. Value Health. 2015;18(2):284–91. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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;13(5):437–52. doi:10.1002/hec.864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dalziel K, Segal L, Mortimer D. Review of Australian health economic evaluation—245 interventions: what can we say about cost effectiveness? Cost Effect Resour Alloc. 2008;6(1):9. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-6-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Linley WG, Hughes DA. Reimbursement decisions of the all wales medicines strategy Group: influence of policy and clinical and economic factors. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(9):779–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, O’Neill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1256–71. doi:10.1002/hec.3086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Svensson M, Nilsson FL, Arnberg K. Reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: the impact of disease severity and cost effectiveness. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(11):1229–36. doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0307-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE’s approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(3):346–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03589.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Census and Statistics Department. Gross domestic product (GDP), implicit price deflator of GDP and per capita GDP. 2014. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp250.jsp?tableID=030&ID=0&productType=8. Accessed 4 Jan 2016.

Download references

Author contributions

CKHW designed the study, acquired data, analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. BHHL acquired data, interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. VYWG interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. CLKL designed the study, interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, 3/F, Ap Lei Chau Clinic, 161 Ap Lei Chau Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Hong Kong

    Carlos K. H. Wong, Vivian Y. W. Guo & Cindy L. K. Lam

  2. Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, 102 Pokfulam Road, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Brian H. H. Lang

Authors
  1. Carlos K. H. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian H. H. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vivian Y. W. Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cindy L. K. Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos K. H. Wong.

Ethics declarations

Funding source

This study has been funded by the Seed Funding Programme for Basic Research (ref: 201504159003), The University of Hong Kong.

Conflict of interest

Carlos KH Wong, Brian HH Lang, Vivian YW Guo and Cindy LK Lam did not have any potential conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, C.K.H., Lang, B.H.H., Guo, V.Y.W. et al. Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 14, 647–657 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0266-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-016-0266-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation