Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 323–329 | Cite as

Should the Lambda (λ) Remain Silent?

  • Hossein Haji Ali AfzaliEmail author
  • Jonathan Karnon
  • Mark Sculpher
Commentary

Introduction

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 [1] 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...

Keywords

Opportunity Cost Budget Impact Sofosbuvir Ruxolitinib Funding Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Funding

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2091–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, 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;12:56–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, et al. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17:877–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20:332–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold—what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ. 2003;12:1049–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bobinac A, Van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: the individual perspective. Value Health. 2010;13:1046–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions. Int J Technol Assess. 2011;27:71–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY—theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:423–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pekarsky B. The new drug reimbursement game: a regulator’s guide to playing and winning. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paulden M, O’Mahony JF, Culyer AJ, et al. Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:1043–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaffer SK, Sussex J, Devlin N, et al. Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs. Health Policy. 2015;119:1237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Committee Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: The Australian Government; 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:713–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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. 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.
  22. 22.
    Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329:972–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making. Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991–1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11:46–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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.
  28. 28.
    Claxton K, Briggs A, Buxton MJ, et al. Value based pricing for NHS drugs: an opportunity not to be missed? BMJ. 2008;336:251–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Griffin SC, Claxton KP, Palmer SJ, et al. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Health Econ. 2011;20:212–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Claxton K. Oft, Vbp: Qed? Health Econ. 2007;16:545–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doyal L. The rationing debate: rationing within the NHS should be explicit—the case for. Brit Med J. 1997;314:1114–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pharmaceutical Management Agency. Making funding decisions. Wellington: Pharmaceutical Management Agency; 2015.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Consultation paper: value-based assessment of health technologies. London: NICE; 2014.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:376–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Culyer AJ. Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? Health Econ. 2015;24:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coast J. The rationing debate: rationing within the NHS should be explicit—the case against. Brit Med J. 1997;314:1118–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Raftery JP. NICE’s cost-effectiveness range: should it be lowered? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:613–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sculpher M, Claxton K. Real economics needs to reflect real decisions response. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:133–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 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.
  41. 41.
    Culyer AJ. Equity—some theory and its policy implications. J Med Ethics. 2001;27:275–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE response to the first report of session 2007–2008. London: Stationery Office; 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Longworth L, Sculpher MJ, Bojke L, Tosh JC. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Haji Ali Afzali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jonathan Karnon
    • 1
  • Mark Sculpher
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations