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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987
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
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2001
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
Earle CC, Chapman RH, Baker CS, et al. Systematic overview of cost—utility assessments in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3302–17
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
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
Rutten F, Drummond M. Making decisions about health technologies: a cost-effectiveness perspective. (Occasional Paper Series). York: Centre for Health Economics; 1994
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422004-00003