PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 745–751 | Cite as

Estimating ‘Costs’ for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Briefing Paper

Abstract

Since 1999, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Programme has been charged with producing guidance for the NHS in England and Wales on the appropriate use of new and existing healthcare programmes. Guidance is based on an assessment of a number of factors, including cost effectiveness. The identification, measurement and valuation of costs are important components of any cost-effectiveness analysis. However, working through these steps raises a number of important methodological questions. For example, how should ‘future’ resource use be estimated, and is there a need to consider all ‘future’ costs? Given that NICE produces national guidance, should national unit cost data be used to value resources or should local variations in negotiated prices be taken into account? This paper was initially prepared as a briefing paper as part of the process of updating NICE’s 2004 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal for a workshop on ‘costs’. It outlines the issues that were raised in the original briefing paper and the subsequent questions that were discussed at the workshop.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the technology appraisals process. London: NICE, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 4]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13 (5): 437–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dakin HA, Devlin NJ, Odeyemi IAO. ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Yes, but’? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Pol 2006; 77 (3): 352–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris SN, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic analysis in health care. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2007Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Culyer AJ. Mark versus Luke? Appropriate methods for the evaluation of public health interventions [research paper]. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 2007 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pdf/rp31.pdf [Accessed 2008 Jul 11]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Baltussen RM, et al. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar: or is it? Value Health 2006; 9 (5): 341–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnston K, Buxton MJ, Jones DR, et al. Assessing the costs of health care technologies in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3 (6): 1–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mushlin Al, Fintor L. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer 1992; 69 Suppl. 7: 1957–1962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johannesson M, Meltzer D, O’Conor RM. Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moskowitz M. Costs of screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1987; 25: 1031–1037PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG58FullGuideline.pdf [Accessed 2008 May 1]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Briggs A, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3 (4): 233–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Briggs A, Gray A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. BMJ 1999; 319 (7210): 635–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, et al. Missing, presumed at random: cost analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12 (5): 377–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raikou M, McGuire A. Estimating medical care costs under conditions of censoring. J Health Econ 2004; 23 (3): 443–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young T. Estimating mean total costs in the presence of censoring: a comparative assessment of methods. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1229–1242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calvert NW, Morgan AB, Catto JW, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2003; 88 (1): 31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    UK Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2006–07. London: DH, 2008 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082571 [Accessed 2008 Mar 1]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buxton MJ, Acheson R, Caine R, et al. Costs and benefits of the heart transplant programmes at Harefield and Papworth Hospitals [research report no.2]. London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1985Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Services Research Unit and NICE Decision Support UnitLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations