Summary
It has become common for analysts to present the findings of cost-utility analyses in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) league tables or rankings. These purport to s how the relative value-for-money of different healthcare technologies. Concomitantly, there is an increasing market for cost-effectiveness data worldwide.
However, the practice of constructing league tables has drawn criticism. Claims of inappropriate comparisons, and poor and flawed methodology have been made. How should decision-makers view cost/QALY league tables? In future, published league tables will need 10 be more informative and thus, by necessity, complex. The principal obstacle to informing health policy- makers with economic analysis is the lack of appropriate outcome data. From this follows uncertainty as to what represents acceptable value-for-money in healthcare purchasing. Thus, the long term objective must be to obtain valid assessments of the value of current and new health service activities. It is in this context that league tables may eventually be most helpful. More immediately, a strategy is required to help decision-makers to prioritise resources rationally with incomplete information.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams ME, McCall NT, Gray DT, et al. Economic analysis in randomized controlled trials. Medical Care 30: 231–243, 1992
Birch S, DonaldsOn C. Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. Journal of Health Economics 6: 211–225, 1987
Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us 10 where we want to be? Journal of Health Economics 11: 279–296, 1992
Borowitz M, Sheldon T. Controlling health care: from economic incentives to micro-clinical regulation. Health Economics 2: 201–204, 1993
Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including economic analyses. Commonwealth of Australia, Woden, ACT, 1990
Congress of the United States Office of TechnOlogy Assessment. Evaluation of the Oregon Medicaid proposal: summary. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1992
Coulter A, Klassen A, MacKenzie IZ, McPherson K. Diagnostic dilation and curettage: is it used appropriately? British Medical Journal 306: 236–239, 1993
Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. PharmacoEconomics 3: 354–361, 1993
Dixon J, Welch HG. Priority selling: lessons from Oregon. Lancet 337: 891–894, 1991
Drummond MF. Resources allocation decisions in health care: a role for quality of life assessments? Journal of Chronic Disease 40: 605–616, 1987
Drummond MF. Cost-effectiveness guiddines for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: is economic evaluation ready for its enhanced status? Health Economics 1: 85–92, 1992
Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside controlled trials: an introduction for clinical researchers.Department of Health, Research and Development Division, London, 1993
Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 7 (4): 561–573, 1991
Drummond MF, O’Brien B. Clinical importance, statistical significance and the assessment of economic and quality-of-life outcomes. Health Economics 2: 205–212, 1993
Drummond MF, Torrance G, Mason M. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good? Social Science and Medicine 37 (1): 33–40, 1993
Eddy DM. Oregon’s methods: did cost-effectiveness analysis fail? Journal of the American Medical Association 266: 2135–2141, 1991
Eddy DM. Medicine, money, and mathematics. Medical Audit News 3: 115–123, 1993
Freemantle N, Watt I, Mason JM. Developments in the purchasing process in the NHS: towards an explicit politics of rationing? Public Administration 71: 535–548, 1993
Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a presciption for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Canadian Medical Association Journal 148 (6): 913–917, 1993
Gerard K. Cost-utility in practice: a policy maker’s guide to the State of the art. Health Policy 21: 249–279, 1992
Gerard K. Setting priorities in the new NHS: can purchasers use cost-utility information? Health Policy 25: 109–125, 1993
Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Economics 2: 59–64, 1993
Gudex C. QALYs and their use by the health service. Centre for Health Economics. Discussion Paper 20, University of York, York, 1986
Kamlet S. The comparative benefits modelling project: framework for cost-utility analysis of government health care programs. US Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service, Washington, DC, 1992
Kaplan RM. A Quality-of-life Approach to Health Resource Allocalion. In Strosberg MA, Weiner JM, Baker R, Fein IA (Eds). Rationing America’s medical care: the Oregon plan and beyond. Brookings Dialogues on Public Policy. The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 1992
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines ror using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medieal Association Journal 146 (4): 473–481, 1992
Lee JT, Sanchez LA. Interpretation of ‘cost-effective’ and soundness of economic evaluations in the pharmacy literature. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 48: 2622–2627, 1991
Mason JM, Drummond MF, Torrance GW. Some guidelines on the use of cost-effectiveness league tables. British Medical Journal 306: 570–572, 1993
Maynard A. Developing the health care market Economic Journal 101: 1277–1286, 1991
Michaels J. Cost effectiveness league tables. Correspondence. British Medical Journal 306: 1072, 1993
Mooney GH. Economics, medicine and health care. Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., Harvester Press Publishing Group, Brighton, 1986
Onratio Ministry of Health. Guidelines for the preparation of economic analysis to be included in submission to Drug Programs Branch for listing in the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary/Comparative Drug Index. Ministry of Health, Toronto, 1991
Petrou S, Malek M, Davey PG. The reliability of cost-utility estimates in cost-per-QALY league tables. Pharmaco Econmics 3: 345–353, 1993
Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature: are methods being used correctly? Annals of Internal Medicine 116: 238–244, 1992
Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine 296: 716–721, 1977
Williams AH. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal 291: 326–329, 1985
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mason, J.M. Cost-per-QALY League Tables. Pharmacoeconomics 5, 472–481 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199405060-00004
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199405060-00004