Should the Lambda (λ) Remain Silent?
- 267 Downloads
When making decisions regarding the funding of new health technologies (e.g. pharmaceuticals), a key consideration should be the opportunity cost associated with a positive funding decision in terms of other patients’ health. Lambda (λ) is a term that has been used to refer to a maximum acceptable value (cost-effectiveness threshold) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a new technology, which should reflect the opportunity cost of funding decisions.
In 2006, Gafni and Birch  discussed the ‘silence of the λ’ with respect to the justification of its numerical value within the decision-making process. They noted that the use of threshold values, which do not represent the true opportunity cost of new and generally more expensive technologies, can lead to increased health expenditures with little evidence of increases in population health.
In this commentary, we interpret the ‘silence of the λ′ with respect to the lack of explicit recognition of the use...
KeywordsOpportunity Cost Budget Impact Sofosbuvir Ruxolitinib Funding Decision
Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, Jonathan Karnon and Mark Sculpher conceptualized the manuscript and prepared the final draft. They share full responsibility for its content. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali is the overall guarantor.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to prepare this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
Hossein Haji Ali Afzali is a member of the ESC of the MSAC. Jonathan Karnon has served as a member of the ESC of the PBAC since 2009. Mark Sculpher has been a member of various NICE advisory committees and was co-author of the University of York’s research on the NHS cost-effectiveness threshold.
- 3.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 5.Gray AM, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
- 6.Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization: tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;146:473–81.Google Scholar
- 13.Pekarsky B. The new drug reimbursement game: a regulator’s guide to playing and winning. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
- 17.Committee Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: The Australian Government; 2013.Google Scholar
- 19.Australian Government Department of Health. Ruxolitinib, tablets, 5 mg, 15 mg and 20 mg, Jakavi®. July 2013: Public summary document. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-07/ruxolitinib. Accessed 6 Jan 2015.
- 20.Australian Government Department of Health. Multicomponent meningococcal group B vaccine, 0.5 mL, injection, prefilled syringe, Bexsero®. November 2013: Public summary document. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2013-11/meningococcal-vaccine. Accessed 6 Jan 2015.
- 21.Australian Government Department of Health. Brentuximab vedotin, injection, 50 mg, Adcetris®. July 2014: Public summary document. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2014-07/brentuximab-psd-07-2014.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.
- 26.Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Threshold values for cost-effectiveness in health care. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre; 2008.Google Scholar
- 27.Deloitte Access Economics (Commissined by Medicines Australia). Access to cancer medicines in Australia. 2013. http://medicinesaustralia.com.au/files/2013/07/Access-to-oncology-medicines-1707-FINALV3.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2015.
- 32.Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Making funding decisions. Wellington: Pharmaceutical Management Agency; 2015.Google Scholar
- 33.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Consultation paper: value-based assessment of health technologies. London: NICE; 2014.Google Scholar
- 39.Australian Government Department of Health. Sofosbuvir, 400 mg tablet, Sovaldi®. July 2014. Public summary document. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2014-07/sofosbuvir-psd-07-2014.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2015.
- 40.Australian Government Department of Health. Sofosbuvir, 400 mg tablet, Sovaldi®. March 2015. Public smmary document. http://www.pbs.gov.au/industry/listing/elements/pbac-meetings/psd/2015-03/Files/sofosbuvir-psd-march-2015.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2015.
- 42.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
- 43.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE response to the first report of session 2007–2008. London: Stationery Office; 2009.Google Scholar
- 45.Barnsley P, Towse A, Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J. Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: methods for the estimation of the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. 2013. https://www.ohe.org/publications/critique-cheresearch-paper-81-methods-estimation-nice-cost-effectiveness-threshold. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.
- 46.Claxton C, Sculpher M. Response to the OHE critique of CHE Research paper 81. 2014. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/Response%20to%20the%20OHE%20critique%20of%20CHE%20Research%20paper%2081.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2015.