Skip to main content

Informing a Cost-Effectiveness Threshold for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Marginal Productivity Approach

PharmacoEconomics volume 38, pages 1319–1331 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China, having been legally mandated in 2019, to inform reimbursement decisions and price negotiations between the National Healthcare Security Administration and pharmaceutical companies around the price of new pharmaceuticals. The criteria currently used to judge cost effectiveness and inform pricing negotiations, 3 × GDP per capita, is based on the rule of thumb previously recommended by the World Health Organization rather than an estimate based on an empirical assessment of health opportunity costs.

Objective

The objective of this study was to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold for health technology assessment in China that accounts for health opportunity cost.

Methods

The elasticity of health outcomes with respect to health expenditure was estimated using variations across 30 provincial-level administrative divisions in 2017 controlling for a range of other factors and using an instrumental variable approach to account for endogeneity to assess robustness of results. The estimated elasticity was then used to calculate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted by variations in Chinese health expenditure at the margin.

Results

The range estimated from this study, 27,923–52,247 (2017 RMB) (central estimate 37,446) per DALY averted or 47–88% of GDP per capita (central estimate 63%), shows that a cost per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs is below 1 × GDP per capita.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the current cost-effectiveness threshold used in China is too high; continuing to use it risks decisions that reduce overall population health.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Availability of Data and Material

All data are publicly available.

Notes

  1. Most variables considered in the study are available only up to 2017.

  2. Our data exclude Tibet due to missing data. This leaves us with a sample size of 30.

  3. The first two are only used when the health outcome is DALY rate since the other two are already age specific.

  4. We consider 0.7 as the threshold for a too high correlation.

  5. It would be ideal to control for provincial fixed effects. Unfortunately, there is insufficient within-province variation in the expenditure variable for this approach to be viable. We therefore chose to estimate pooled OLS, which is the same type of panel analysis that is undertaken in Siverskog and Henriksson [17].

  6. Corresponding pooled OLS analysis looking at 2011–2017 for the mortality rate outcomes finds similar coefficient estimates. These results are presented in Table S2, Electronic Supplementary Material.

  7. The statistical insignificance may be caused by the relatively small sample size; for example, large effect and large standard error at the same time.

  8. Corresponding pooled OLS IV estimates for the mortality rate outcome models are found in Tables S3 and S4, Electronic Supplementary Material, which provide very similar coefficient estimates. Again, in each case, the IVs pass all three identification tests. The endogeneity tests suggest the exogeneity of health expenditure cannot be rejected based on the data.

  9. Calculating using an exchange rate of 0.148 for 2017 from the World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF.

References

  1. Liu G, Hu S, Wu J. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. China J Pharm Econ (in Chinese). 2011;3:6–48.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wang H, Jin C, Bai F, Lin X, Fang L, Sun H, et al. Driving factors and mode transformation regarding health technology assessment (HTA) in China: problems and recommendations. Biosci Trends. 2018;13(2):110–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen Y, Chi X, He Y, Wei Y, Oortwijn W, Shi L. Mapping of health technology assessment in china: situation analysis and international comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(5):401–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen Y, He Y, Chi X, Wei Y, Shi L. Development of health technology assessment in China: new challenges. Biosci Trends. 2018;12(2):102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. China CPGO. Basic Healthcare and Health Promotion Law [Internet]. 2019. https://npcobserver.com/lawlist/basic-healthcare-and-health-promotion-law/. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  6. Li H, Liu GG, Wu J, Wu JH, Dong CH, Hu SL. Recent pricing negotiations on innovative medicines pilot in China: experiences, implications, and suggestions. Value Health Regul Issues. 2018;1(15):133–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu GG, editor. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations (Chinese-English version). Beijing: China Market Press; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny M-P, et al. Policy & practice COst–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons Thresholds based on gross domestic product. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:925–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Horton S. Cost-effectiveness analysis in disease control priorities, third edition. In: Jamison DT, Gelband H, Horton S, Jha P, Laxminarayan R, Mock CN, et al., editors. Disease control priorities in developing countries. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 [Internet]. London. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  11. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. PMPRB Guidelines 2019 [Internet]. Ottawa. 2019. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pmprb-cepmb/documents/consultations/draft-guidelines/draft-guidelines-en.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  12. Edney LC, Haji Ali Afzali H, Cheng TC, Karnon J. Estimating the reference incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Australian health system. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:239–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vallejo-Torres L, García-Lorenzo B, Serrano-Aguilar P. Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS. Heal Econ (United Kingdom). 2018;27(4):746–61.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stadhouders N, Koolman X, Dijk C, Jeurissen P, Adang E. The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: estimating cost-effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function. Health Econ. 2019;28(11):1331–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van Baal P, Perry-Duxbury M, Bakx P, Versteegh M, van Doorslaer E, Brouwer W. A cost-effectiveness threshold based on the marginal returns of cardiovascular hospital spending. Health Econ. 2019;28(1):87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold [Internet]. York; 2013. (CHE Research Paper). Report No.: 81. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP81_methods_estimation_NICE_costeffectiveness_threshold_(Nov2013).pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  17. Siverskog J, Henriksson M. Estimating the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden’s public healthcare sector. Eur J Heal Econ. 2019;20(5):751–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Edoka IP, Stacey NK. Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for health care decision-making in South Africa. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(5):546–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Woods B, Revill P, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research. Value Health. 2016;19(8):929–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ochalek J, Lomas J, Claxton K. Estimating health opportunity costs in low-income and middle-income countries: a novel approach and evidence from cross-country data. BMJ Glob Heal. 2018;3(6):e000964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ochalek J, Lomas J. Reflecting the health opportunity costs of funding decisions within value frameworks: initial estimates and the need for further research. Clin Ther. 2020;42(1):44–59.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gallet CA, Doucouliagos H. The impact of healthcare spending on health outcomes: a meta-regression analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2017;179:9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Filmer D, Pritchett L. The impact of public spending on health: does money matter? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49(10):1309–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moreno-Serra R, Smith PC. Broader health coverage is good for the nation’s health: evidence from country level panel data. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2015;178(1):101–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(14):1–503 (v–vi).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, Yin P, Zhu J, Chen W, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019;394(10204):1145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yip W, Fu H, Chen AT, Zhai T, Jian W, Xu R, et al. 10 years of health-care reform in China: progress and gaps in Universal Health Coverage. The Lancet. 2019;394:1192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. People’s Republic of China health system review [Internet]. Manila; 2015. https://iris.wpro.who.int/handle/10665.1/11408. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  29. Nakamura R, Lomas J, Claxton K, Bokhari F, Serra RM, Suhrcke M. CHE Research Paper 128 Assessing the impact of health care expenditures on mortality using cross-country data [Internet]. York. 2016. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP128_health_care_expenditures_mortality_cross-country_data.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  30. Yuan P, Chen T, Lin X. Analysis of differences in life expectancy across the east, central and west regions of China. Chin J Prev Med. 2014;48(8):739–40.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Andrews M, Elamin O, Hall AR, Kyriakoulis K, Sutton M. Inference in the presence of redundant moment conditions and the impact of government health expenditure on health outcomes in England. Econom Rev. 2017;36(1–3):23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Xu J, Jian W, Zhu K, Kwon S, Fang H. Reforming public hospital financing in China: progress and challenges. BMJ. 2019;21(365):20–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Health Commission of the PRC. Guiding Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on urban public hospital comprehensive reform pilot [Internet]. Beijing; 2015. (国办发). Report No.: 38. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/tigs/s3581/201505/6c4713d7d40e4b6cb3f1db173143c296.shtml. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  34. Wu Q, Zhao L, Ye X-C. Shortage of healthcare professionals in China. BMJ. 2016;22(354):i4860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ochalek J, Lomas J, Claxton K. Assessing health opportunity costs for the Canadian health care systems. 2018. http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/CMFiles/Consultations/new_guidelines/Canada_report_2018-03-14_Final.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  36. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Data Resources | GHDx [Internet]. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2017. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  37. China Statistical Yearbook 2018 [Internet]. Beijing. 2018. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexeh.htm. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  38. Soares MO, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. Health opportunity costs: Assessing the implications of uncertainty using elicitation methods with experts. Med Decis Mak. 2020;40(4):448–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. UK Department of Health and Social Care. Cost-effectiveness methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements (CEMIPP) The government’s decision and summary of consultation responses [Internet]. London; 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/807856/CEMIPP_Consultation_Response_1.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  40. Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(7):397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lin X, Bai F, Lv L, Wang H, He J, Jin C. Exploration and research on hospital-based technology assessment in China. Chin J Evid Based Med (in Chinese). 2020;20(1):95–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Feng X, Kim DD, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Ollendorf DA. Using QALYs versus DALYs to measure cost-effectiveness: how much does it matter? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(2):96–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cameron D, Ubels J, Norström F. On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? In: Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review. Vol. 11, Global Health Action 2018;11:1, 1447828. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/16549716.2018.1447828. Accessed 18 Aug 2020

  44. Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(5):402–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Butt T, Liu GG, Kim DD, Neumann PJ. Taking stock of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare in China. BMJ Glob Heal. 2019;4(3):e001418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. China Health Statistical Yearbook 2018. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Publishing House; 2018.

  47. Educational Statistics Yearbook of China [Internet]. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2017. http://cdi.cnki.net/Titles/SingleNJ?NJCode=N2019030252. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.

  48. Zhang Z. Development prospect appraisal report for Chinese provinces and cities 1990-2018. In: Nan Y, editor. Annual report on China’s economic growth 2017-2018. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press; 2018. p. 50–284.

    Google Scholar 

  49. China TND and RC of the PR of. China transportation and communications yearbook 2018. Beijing: Yearbook House of China Transportation & Communications; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for feedback received at the inception stage of this work during the 2nd China HTA Conference in Beijing and at a meeting at the Shanghai Health Development Research Centre in October 2019. We also thank Francesco Longo for useful discussions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jessica Ochalek and Haiyin Wang contributed equally to this research.

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Jessica Ochalek & James Lomas

  2. Shanghai Health Development Research Centre, Shanghai, 201199, China

    Haiyin Wang & Chunlin Jin

  3. Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Yuanyuan Gu & Henry Cutler

Authors
  1. Jessica Ochalek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiyin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuanyuan Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Lomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henry Cutler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chunlin Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JO, HW, YG and JL conceived the study design and drafted the initial manuscript. YG, JL and JO led on the data analysis. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuanyuan Gu.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Code availability

The Stata code for data analysis is available.

Funding

Not applicable.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 189 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ochalek, J., Wang, H., Gu, Y. et al. Informing a Cost-Effectiveness Threshold for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Marginal Productivity Approach. PharmacoEconomics 38, 1319–1331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00954-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00954-y