PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 645–655 | Cite as

A Decision-Theoretic Framework for the Application of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Regulatory Processes

Leading Article

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) represents the most important tool in the health economics literature to quantify and qualify the reasoning behind the optimal decision process in terms of the allocation of resources to a given health intervention. However, the practical application of CEA in the regulatory process is often limited by some critical barriers, and decisions in clinical practice are frequently influenced by factors that do not contribute to efficient resource allocation, leading to inappropriate drug prescription and utilization. Moreover, most of the time there is uncertainty about the real cost-effectiveness profile of an innovative intervention, with the consequence that it is usually impossible to obtain an immediate and perfect substitution of a product with another having a better cost-effectiveness ratio.

The objective of this article is to propose a rational approach to CEA within regulatory processes, basing our analysis in a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework and proposing an extension of the application of well known tools (such as the expected value of information) to such cases. The regulator can use these tools to identify the economic value of reducing the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness profile of the several alternatives. This value can be compared with the one that is generated by the actual market share of the different treatment options: one that is the most cost effective and others in the same therapeutic category that, despite producing clinical benefits, are less cost effective.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13): 716–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Briggs A, Schulpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Willan AR, Briggs AH. The statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 69–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Hagan A, Stevens J. A framework for cost-effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data. Health Econ 2001; 10: 303–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Hagan A, Stevens J, Montmartin J. Bayesian cost effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data. Stat Med 2001; 20: 733–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parmigiani G. Modeling in medical decision making. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spiegelhalter D, Best N. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med 2003; 22: 3687–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spiegelhalter D, Abrams K, Myles J. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons, 2004Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russo P. Pharmacoeconomics evaluations in the Italian regulatory context: a qualiquantitative analysis of pricing and reimbursement dossiers. Pharmacoeconomics – Italian Research Articles 2008; 10 (2): 59–75Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berger ML, Bingefors K, Hedblom EC, et al. Health care cost, quality, and outcomes: ISPOR book of terms. Lawrenceville (GA): ISPOR, 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications. BMJ 2002; 325: 891–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EuroQol. European value of a quality adjusted life year [online]. Available from URL: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq [Accessed 2008 Feb]
  14. 14.
    Brouwer W, van Exel J, Baker R, et al. The new myth: the social value of the QALY. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (1): 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 609–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall DA, Douglas PR, Drummond MF, et al. Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (6): 477–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mauskopf J, Rutten F, Schonfeld W. Cost-effectiveness league tables: valuable guidance for decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (14): 991–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor RS, Drummond M, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329: 972–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Detsky AS, Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA 2007; 298 (2): 221–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 (Suppl.): S68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baio G, Dawid AP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis in health economics. Research Report 292/08, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, UK, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Stats/research/Resrprts/psfiles/rr292.pdf [Accessed 2008 Oct]
  22. 22.
    van Hout B, Gordon M, Rutten F. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Claxton K, Schulpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howard R. Information value theory. IEEE Transact System Sci Cybernet 1966; SCC-2 (1) 22–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Felli J, Hazen G. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 95–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Felli J, Hazen G. A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 263–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceutical. Health Econ 1999; 8: 269–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Claxton K, Neumann P, Araki S, et al. Bayesian value-of-information analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 38–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ades A, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 207–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan A, Kharroubi S. Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation. Research Report 560/05. Sheffield (UK): University of Sheffield, Department of Probability and Statistics, 2005Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fenwick E, Palmer S, Claxton K, et al. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 480–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.University College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Agenzia Italiana del FarmacoRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations