Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) are a method used to present uncertainty surrounding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Construction of the curves relies on the assumption that the willingness to pay (WTP) for health gain is identical to the willingness to accept (WTA) health loss. The objective of this paper is to explore the impact that differences between WTP and WTA health changes have on CEACs.
Previous empirical evidence has shown that the relationship between WTP and WTA is not 1: 1. The discrepancy between WTP and WTA for health changes can be expressed as a ratio: the accept/reject ratio (which can vary between 1 and infinity). Depending on this ratio, the area within the southwest quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane in which any bootstrap cost-effect pairs will be considered to be cost effective will be smaller, resulting in a lower CEAC. We used data from two clinical trials to illustrate that relaxing the 1: 1 WTP/WTA assumption has an impact on the CEACs. Given the difficulty in assessing the accept/reject ratio for every evaluation, we suggest presenting a series of CEACs for a range of values for the accept/reject ratio, including 1 and infinite.
Although it is not possible to explain this phenomenon within the extra-welfarist framework, it has been shown empirically that individuals give a higher valuation to the removal of effective therapies than to the introduction of new therapies that are more costly and effective. In cost-effectiveness analyses where uncertainty of the ICER covers the southwest quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, the discrepancy between societies’ WTP and WTA should be indicated by drawing multiple CEACs.
This work was performed within the authors’ institutes without additional, external funding. We acknowledge Dr J. Prins and Dr G. Bleijenberg (Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands) and Dr M. van M. Steijn, J. Sluimer, L. Bekebrede and S. Bulstra (University Hospital Maastricht) for making their trial data available.
The authors take full responsibility for any remaining inaccuracies and the viewpoints expressed. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Van-Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3 (5): 309–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray A, Raikou M, McGuire A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an intensive blood glucose control policy in patients with type 2 diabetes: economic analysis alongside randomised controlled trial (UKPDS 41). United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ 2000; 320 (7246): 1373–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3 (2): 1–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 (5): 518–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002; 11: 175–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs AH, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severens JL, De Boo TM, Konst EM. Uncertainty of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of Fieller and bootstrap confidence intervals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 608–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunenberg D, Van-Steijn M, Sluimer J, et al. Joint recovery programme versus usual care programme: an economic evaluation of a new care protocol for joint replacement surgery. Med Care 2005; 43 (10): 1018–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawker GA, Wright JG, Coyle PC. Health related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 163–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hitch HS. Total joint replacement: a cost-effective procedure for the 1990s. Med Health R I 1998; 81: 162–4Google Scholar
Birell F, Johnell O, Sillman A. Projecting the need for hip replacement over the next three decades: influence of changing demography and threshold for surgery. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58: 569–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan P. The benefits of a nurse-led preoperative assessment clinic. Nurs Times 2000; 96: 42–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gammon J, Mulholland CW. Effect of preparatory information prior to elective total hip replacement on post-operative physical coping outcomes. Int J Nurs Stud 1966; 33: 589–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin YK, Lin GT, Tien YC, et al. Impact of a clinical pathway for total knee arthroplasty. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2002; 28: 134–40Google Scholar
Pearson SD, Kleefield SF, Soukop JR, et al. Critical pathways intervention to reduce length of hospital stay. Am J Med 2001; 110: 175–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingarten S, Riedinger MS, Sandhu M, et al. Can practice guidelines safely reduce hospital length of stay? Results from a multicentre interventional study. Am J Med 1998; 105: 33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowie J. Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ 2004; 13: 453–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar