Costs of Illness in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
- First Online:
Costs of illness are an important input in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Reviews of the literature have found that many CEAs are of low technical quality and fail to take accoum of costs of illness appropriately. The costs of illness and disease averted by an intervention, indirect costs, and medical care costs in added years of life arc topics that present methodological issues and are nOt handled consistently in CEAs.
Costs of illness and discase averted may be estimated by prevalence- or incidence- based methods; the correct conceptual paradigm depends on the nature of the disease. Incidence costs may be estimated by modelling the disease process. or directly from prevalence costs. the choice being determined by the extent and quality of data available. Regardless of the method. in forward-looking CEAs potential technological change must be taken into account so that incidence-based lifetime costs estimated from current treatment practices will not be biased.
Whether to include indirect costs is an important issue. because indirect costs may be large and have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness ratio. In the pure CEA model. indirect costs are excluded on ethical grounds and 10 prevent incursion of elements of cost-benefit analysis into CEA. The modified CEA model accepts enhanced productivity as an economic benefit made possible by, but distinct from. the health effect of an intervention. Indirect costs are included when appropriate, dependi ng on the perspective of the analysis, the measure of effecti veness. and who bears the costs.
When medical care extends life, expenditures will be incurred in the added years for illness and disease unrelated to the intervention. As with indirect costs. the pure CEA considers unrelated ‘downstream’ costs an indirect consequence of the health benefit of the intervention and excludes them from CEAs with the societal perspective. The modified CEA treats unrelated downstream costs as an economic effect of the change in health due to the intervention and includes them in order to have a more complete accounting of the cost of the intervention.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hodgson TA, Meiners MR. Cost-of-illness methodology: a gu ide to curren t practi ces and procedures. Milbank Q 1982; 60: 429–62Google Scholar
- 2.Fein R. On measuring economic benefit of health programs. In: Veatch RM, Branson R, editors. Ethics and health policy. Cambridge. MA: Ballinger, 1976: 261–87Google Scholar
- 4.Weisbrod B. Economics of public health. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961Google Scholar
- 5.Klarman H. Syphilis control programs. In: Dorfman R, editor. Measuring benefits of government investments. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1965: 367–414Google Scholar
- 6.Mushkin SJ. Health as an investment. J Political Economy 1962; 70: 5PtGoogle Scholar
- 7.Rice DP. Estimating the cost of illness. Health Economic Series No 6. Washington, DC: US Government Priming Office. 1966: Pub. No. 947-6Google Scholar
- 8.The incidence and economic costs of cancer, motor vehicle injuries, coronary heart disease, and stroke: a comparative analysis. Am J Public Health 1980; 70: 1249–60Google Scholar
- 9.Harlunian NS, Smart CN, Thompson MS. The incidence and oxonomic costs of major health impairments. Lexington, MA: Lexingtom Books 1981Google Scholar
- 15.Hodgson TA. Annual costs of illness versus lifetime costs of illness and implications of structural change. Drug Information J 1988; 22: 323–41Google Scholar
- 16.Drummond ME, Stoddan GL, Torrance Gw. Methods for the economic evaluation of health Care programmes. Oxford: Oxford, 1981Google Scholar
- 17.Lua BR, Elixhauser A. Standards for the socioeconomic evaluation of heahh care services. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990Google Scholar
- 18.Thompson MS. Benefit-cost analysis for program evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980Google Scholar
- 23.Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evalualion and resource allocation. New York: Oxford, 1993Google Scholar
- 26.Drummond MF. Survey of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in industrialized countries. World Health Sial Q 1985; 38: 383–401Google Scholar
- 31.Jöson B. Cost-benefit analysis of hepatitis B vaccination. Postgrad Med J 1987; 63 Suppl. 2: 27–32Google Scholar
- 32.Groves EJ. Utilization of short-stay hospitals, US, 1985. Vital and Health Statistics Series No. 91. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1981: DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)87-1752Google Scholar
- 33.Graves EJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: annual summary 1991. Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, No. 114, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 1993: DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)93-1175Google Scholar
- 34.Bennett Jr IL. Technology as a shaping force. Daedalus 1977; 106: 125–33Google Scholar
- 48.Russell LB. Is prevention better than cure? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1986Google Scholar
- 49.Weinstcin MC. From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line? In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care-cost, benefits and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press. In pressGoogle Scholar
- 52.Kamlet MS. The comparative benefits modding project: a framework for cost-utility analysis of government health care pmgrams. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1992Google Scholar
- 56.Warner KE, Luce BR. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1982Google Scholar
- 57.Letsch SW, Lazenby HC, Levil KR, et al. National health expenditures. 1991Google Scholar
- 58.US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the US 1992. 112th edition. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992Google Scholar