The Risk of Comparative Effectiveness Analysis for Decision Making Purposes

  • Patricia Cerrito
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 33)

Abstract

The purpose of comparative effectiveness analysis is ordinarily defined as a means to compare the benefits of drug A versus drug B. However, particularly in relation to cancer drugs, there is only drug A, and comparative effectiveness analysis tends to compare drug A to a quality adjusted threshold value, with a frequent conclusion that the cost of the drug is not worth the additional life given to the patient. Ordinarily, a societal perspective is used to deny the drugs, since the additional life may be worth the drug cost for the patient, although not to the payer. The British organization, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has denied many cancer drugs to their patients because the cost exceeds a threshold value. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare are examining a similar process to deny treatments that exceed a quality adjusted price of $50,000. There are similar provisions in the Healthcare Reform Act. With the emphasis upon medications, medical procedures are not as subject to this comparative effectiveness scrutiny; procedures can frequently exceed the cost of medication treatments. However, each medication is considered separately; no analysis examines the total contribution of the treatment to the overall cost of healthcare. We examine different aspects of comparative analysis using techniques of data mining.

Keywords

Cancer Drug Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Standard Gamble Perfect Health Home Health Care 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous-bevacizumab, Bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. National Health Service, London (2009)Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous-MedicalNews, NICE acknowledge Alzheimer’s model faulty, but do not plan to change recommendations, Medical News Today, UK (June 12, 2009)Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous-NICE, NICE National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, London (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous-NICE, Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London (2008)Google Scholar
  5. Anonymous-NICEreview, Alzheimer’s disease-donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine. NHS NICE (2009)Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous-NICEreview, TA111 Alzheimer’s disease-donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine: guidance (amended August 2009), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Anonymous-WSJ, The Avastin Mugging: The FDA rigs the verdict against a good cancer. The Wall Street Journal (August 18, 2010), http://www.WSJ.com
  8. Devlin, K.: NHS patients denied drugs due to lack of common sense at NICE, say charities. Telegraph (November 27, 2008)Google Scholar
  9. Mason, A.R., Drummond, M.F.: Public funding of new cancer drugs: Is NICE getting nastier? European Journal of Cancer 45, 1188–1192 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McNamee, P., Glendinning, S., et al.: Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer. European Journal of Health Economics 5(1), 81–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Perrone, M.: FDA delays decision on breast cancer drug Avastin, AP Associated Press, Washington, DC, September 17 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. Prieto, L., Sacristan, J.A.: Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1(80) (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Puhan, M.A., Schunemann, H.J., et al.: The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(10), 1029–1033 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, W.J.: Save money by killing the sick: euthanasia as health care cost containment not such a parody as the author think (2009)Google Scholar
  15. Sprague, C.: The economic argument for euthanasia (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Cerrito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville

Personalised recommendations