Estimating ‘Costs’ for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

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.

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

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): 437–452

    PubMed  Article  Google 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): 352–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Morris SN, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic analysis in health care. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2007

    Google 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, 2005

    Google 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): 341–347

    PubMed  Article  Google 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): 1–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mushlin Al, Fintor L. Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer 1992; 69 Suppl. 7: 1957–1962

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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: 382–389

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Moskowitz M. Costs of screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1987; 25: 1031–1037

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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]

  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): 233–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Briggs A, Gray A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. BMJ 1999; 319 (7210): 635–638

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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): 377–392

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Raikou M, McGuire A. Estimating medical care costs under conditions of censoring. J Health Econ 2004; 23 (3): 443–470

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Young T. Estimating mean total costs in the presence of censoring: a comparative assessment of methods. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1229–1242

    PubMed  Article  Google 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): 31–35

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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, 1985

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was initially prepared as a briefing paper for NICE as part of the process of updating the Institute’s 2004 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. The work was funded by NICE through its Decision Support Unit, which is based at the universities of Sheffield, Leicester, York, Leeds and at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dr Alec Miners.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miners, A. Estimating ‘Costs’ for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 745–751 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00005

Download citation

Keywords

  • Economic Evaluation
  • Future Cost
  • Briefing Paper
  • Relevant Cost
  • Estimate Unit Cost