Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 451–456 | Cite as

The Inclusion of Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Not an Optional Extra

  • Werner B. F. BrouwerEmail author
Commentary

Introduction

Increasingly, welfare economic evaluations are used in the context of the allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Many jurisdictions prescribe their use in the context of reimbursement, funding, and/or pricing of new health technologies, especially pharmaceuticals. The fact that the outcomes of such evaluations can influence actual allocation decisions in healthcare underlines the importance of a sound methodology and an appropriate decision-making process. Fortunately, in both areas progress has been made over the past decades. However, there remains room for further improvement, for instance in finding appropriate estimates of monetary values of health, developing broader outcome measures than quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), finding appropriate equity (principles to estimate) weights for health outcomes, and estimating health opportunity costs.

A topic that receives increasing attention in this context is the inclusion in economic evaluations of so-called...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for this commentary and rebuttal.

Conflict of interest

Werner Brouwer has no conflicts of interest other than a long-standing history of advocating the societal perspective in economic evaluations.

References

  1. 1.
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2005;24:751–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bobinac A, Van Exel J, Rutten F, Brouwer W. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiving effect and the family effect. J Health Econ. 2010;29(4):549–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bobinac A, Van Exel J, Rutten F, Brouwer W. Health effects in significant others: separating family and caregiving effects. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(2):292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brouwer WBF, Tilford M, van Exel NJA. Incorporating caregiver and family effects in economic evaluations of child health. In: Ungar W, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. How to include informal care in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(12):1105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Janabi H, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, Trotter C, Glennie L, Hannigan L, et al. QALY losses in patients’ family networks: a study of the wider health effects of meningitis. Health Econ. 2016;25(12):1529–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al Janabi H, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, Coast J. A framework for including health spillovers in economic evaluation. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(2):176–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boadway R, Bruce N. Welfare economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer A. Discounting and decision-making in the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20:2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Do YK, Norton EC, Steams SC, Van Houtven CH. Informal care and caregiver’s health. Health Econ. 2015;24(2):224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA. 1999;282(23):2215–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Measuring the experienced impact of informal care on carers: a construct validation study of the CarerQol instrument in a large sample of caregivers. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wittenberg E, Ritter GA, Prosser LA. Evidence of spillover of illness among household members: EQ-5D scores from a US sample. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(2):235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittenberg E, Prosser LA. Disutility of illness for caregivers and families: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoefman RJ, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. How to include informal care in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(12):1105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Payakachat N, Tilford JM, Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Grosse SD. Measuring health and well-being effects in family caregivers of children with craniofacial malformations. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1487–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krol M, Papenburg J, van Exel NJA. Does including informal care in economic evaluations matter? A systematic review of inclusion and impact of informal care in cost-effectiveness studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(2):123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grima DT, Bernard LM, Dunn ES, McFarlane PA, Mendelssohn DC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a case for excluding dialysis costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):981–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Baal PHM, Meltzer D, Brouwer WBF. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines should prescribe inclusion of indirect medical costs! A response to Grima et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barrett A, Roques T, Small M, Smith RD. How much will Herceptin really cost? BMJ. 2006;333(7578):1118–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tilford JM, Payakachat N. Progress in measuring family spillover effects for economic evaluations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(2):195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCabe C. Expanding the scope of costs and benefits for economic evaluations in health: some words of caution. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0712-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus School of Health Policy & ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erasmus School of EconomicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations