Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 428–442 | Cite as

Median-Based Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)

Article

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a type of economic evaluation that examines the costs and health outcomes of alternative strategies and has been extensively applied in health sciences. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represents the additional cost of one unit of outcome gained by one strategy compared with another, has become a popular methodology in CEA. Despite its popularity, limited attention has been paid to summary measures other than the mean for summarizing cost as well as effectiveness in the context of CEA. Although some apparent advantages of other central tendency measures, such as median for cost data that are often highly skewed, are well understood, thus far, the median has rarely been considered in the ICER. In this paper, we propose the median-based ICER, along with inferential procedures, and suggest that mean- and median-based ICERs be considered together as complementary tools in CEA for informed decision making, acknowledging the pros and cons of each. If the mean-and median-based CEAs are concordant, we may feel reasonably confident about the cost-effectiveness of an intervention, but if they provide different results, our confidence may need to be adjusted accordingly, pending further evidence.

AMS Subject Classification

62G09 62-07 62P20 

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-effectiveness plane Mean cost Median cost 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bang, H., and A. A. Tsiatis. 2002. Median regression with censored cost data. Biometrics, 58, 643–649.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, W. C. 1990. The CE plane: A graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med. Decision Making 10, 212–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomfield, D. J., M. D. Krahn, T. Neogi, et al. 1998. Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: Based on a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J. Clin. Oncol., 16, 2272–2279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, K. K. Yokoyama, and P. R. Freeman. 2001. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: Results from a field experiment. J. Health Econ., 20, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs, A. 2000. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: Size matters: The need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma. Br. Med. J., 321, 1362–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brookmeyer, R. 2005. Median survival time. In Encyclopedia of biostatistics, ed. P. Armitage and T. Colton. New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Chaudhary, M. A., and S. C. Stearns. 1996. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: An example from a randomized trial. Stat. Med., 15, 1447–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinh, P., and X.-H. Zhou. 2006. Nonparametric statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses. Biometrics, 62, 576–588.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drummond, M. F., M. J. Sculpher, G. W. Torrance, B. J. O’Brien, and G. L. Stoddart. 2005. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Duan, N. 1983. Smearing estimate: A nonparametric retransformation method. JASA 78, 605–610.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan, M. Y., and Zhou, X. H. 2007. A simulation study to compare methods for constructing confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method, 7, 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fenwick, E., K. Claxton, and M. J. Sculpher. 2001. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 10, 779–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garber, A. M., and C. E. Phelps. 1997. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ., 16, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardiner, J. C., C. J. Bradley, and M. Huebner. 2000. The cost-effectiveness ratio in the analysis of health care programs. In Handbook of Statistics, Bioenvironmental and Public Health Statistics 18, eds. Rao, C. R., and P. K. Sen. pp. 841–869, North Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Gardiner, J. C., M. Huebner, H. Jetton, and C. J. Bradley. 2001. On parametric confidence intervals for the cost-effectiveness ratio. Biometrical J., 43, 283–296.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardiner, J. C., C. M. Sirbu, and M. H. Rahbar. 2004. Update on statistical power and sample size assessments for cost-effectiveness studies. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res., 4, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gold, M. R., J. E. Sigel, L. B. Russell, and M. C. Weinstein (eds.). 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heitjan, D. F., A. J. Moskowitz, and W. Whang. 1999a. Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials. Health Econ., 8, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heitjan, D. F., A. J. Moskowitz, and W. Whang. 1999b. Problems with interval estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Med. Decision Making, 19, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heshmat, S. 2003. Cost-effectiveness analysis. In Encyclopedia of biopharmaceutical statistics, ed. S.-C. Chow. p. 363–368, Informa Health Care.Google Scholar
  21. Hwang, J. T. G. (1995). Fieller’s problems and resampling techniques. Stati. Sin., 5, 167–171.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang, G., J. Wu, and G. R. Williams. 2000. Fieller’s interval and the bootstrap-Fieller interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method, 1, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laska, E. M., M. Meisner, C. Siegel, and A. A. Stinnett. 1999. Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence. Health Econ., 8, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neumann, P. J. 2004. Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am. J. Managed Care, 10, 308–312.Google Scholar
  25. O’Brien, B. J., and A. H. Briggs. 2002. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: An introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat. Methods Med. Res., 11, 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Obenchain, R. L. 1999. Resampling and multiplicity in cost-effectiveness inference. J. Biopharm. Stat. 9, 563–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Obenchain, R. L. 2008. ICE preference maps; Nonlinear generalizations of net benefit and acceptability. Health Serv Outcomes Res. Method, 8, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Obenchain, R. L., and B. M. Johnstone. 1999. Mixed-model imputation of cost data for early discontinuers from a randomized clinical trial. Drug Information J., 33, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Obenchain, R. L., and J. A. Sacristan. 1997. In reply to “The negative side of cost-effectiveness ratios.” J. Am. Med. Assoc., 277, 1931–1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsey, S., R. Willke, A. Briggs, et al. 2005. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health, 8, 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rossner, M., H. Van Epps, and E. Hill. 2007. Show me the data. J. Cell Biol., 179, 1091–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siegel, J. E., M. C. Weinstein, L. B. Russell, and M. R. Gold. 1996. For the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 276, 1339–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stinnett, A. A. 1996. Adjusting for bias in C/E ratio estimates. Health Econ., 5, 470–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stinnett, A. A., and J. Mullahy. 1997. The negative side of cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 277, 1931–1932.Google Scholar
  35. Stinnett, A. A., and J. Mullahy. 1998. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Decision Making, 18, S68–S80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tannock, I. F., D. Osoba, M. R. Stockler. et al. 1996. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus pred-nisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: A Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J. Clin. Oncol., 14, 1756–1764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tollefson, G. D., C. M. Beasley, P. V. Tran, et al. 1997. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders: Results of an international collaborative trial. Am. J. Psychiatry, 154, 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Hout, B., M. Al, G. Gordon, and F. Rutten. 1994. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ., 3, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, H., and H. Zhao. 2008. A study on confidence intervals for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Biometrical J., 50, 505–514.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinstein, M. C., and W. B. Stason. 1977. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practice. N. Engl. J. Med., 296, 716–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao, H., H. Bang, H. Wang, and P. E. Pfeifer. 2007. On the equivalence of some medical cost estimators with censored data. Stat. Med., 26, 4520–4530.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao, H., and L. Tian. 2001. On estimating medical cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with censored data. Biometrics, 57, 1002–1008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao, H., C. Zuo, S. Chen, and H. Bang. (In press). Nonparametric inference for median costs with censored data. Biometrics.Google Scholar
  44. Zhou, X. H., C. A. Melfi, and S. L. Hui. 1997. Methods for comparison of cost data. Ann. Intern. Med., 127, 752–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiostatisticsDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Rural Public HealthTexas A&M Health Science CenterCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations