Skip to main content
Log in

Changing health environment: The challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the development and introduction of costly new technologies and restrictive drug budgets, health economic evaluation has gained increasing importance. Health economic evaluation is now mandatory as part of reimbursement decisions in many countries. Cost-effectiveness analysis, which relates to a defined alternative and indication, and for a specific patient group and specific perspective, is the preferred health economic analysis used to make valued judgements about the efficiency of a new treatment. The costs of the new treatment are assessed relative to its potential benefits in terms of improved health, measured as increased survival and impact on quality of life. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), an index combining quality of life and length of life, facilitates comparisons between treatments for different diseases. Governments are increasingly using QALYas an outcome measure in economic evaluation. The QALY provides an estimate, which is then used to make a decision dependent on the willingness to pay for the treatment, based on a certain threshold value. Current thresholds, usually in the range of approximately US$50 000 a year (comparable with the annual cost of renal dialysis), vary between different countries. However, these thresholds are not absolute limits; choices about the allocation of healthcare resources are also influenced by other factors, including considerations of equity and the severity of the disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table I
Fig. 3
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel L, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.; 1996. pp. 366–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2001

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johannesson M. At what coronary risk level is it costeffective to initiate cholesterol lowering drug treatment in primary prevention? Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 919–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost—utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3302–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). PharmacoEconomics 2001; 19: 1103–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 473–81

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rutten F, Drummond M. Making decisions about health technologies: a cost-effectiveness perspective. (Occasional Paper Series). York: Centre for Health Economics; 1994

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt Jönsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jönsson, B. Changing health environment: The challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. Pharmacoeconomic 22 (Suppl 4), 5–10 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422004-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422004-00003

Keywords

Navigation