Cost-Effectiveness: A Key Step in Technology Transfer

Chapter

Abstract

Whenever appropriate, grant applications should include an intervention cost analysis to demonstrate the “real-world” feasibility of interventions that are intended to improve upon the current standard of practice. Collecting cost information in addition to effectiveness (outcome) data leaves open the possibility of conducting a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis at later date. The goal of the economic analysis is to demonstrate that the proposed intervention is affordable, hence a realistic real-world option, and that it is either more economically efficient than existing alternatives or that its additional costs are justified by its greater effectiveness. If the intervention is shown to be effective, virtually every policy maker who is considering adopting the intervention will want to know how to judge its affordability. The application should describe the specific aims of the economic analyses, relevant background, why the analyses are significant, the qualifications of the research team to carry out the analyses, and how – specifically, and in detail – the economic analyses will be conducted. If done correctly, an economic efficiency analysis can add appreciable value to a grant application. This chapter offers the authors’ considered guidance on the correct way to propose an economic analysis in a grant application.

Keywords

Obesity Depression Transportation Income Schizophrenia 

References

  1. Allard, R. (1990a). A family of mathematical models to describe the risk of infection by a sexually transmitted agent. Epidemiology, 1, 30–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, R. (1990b). A mathematical model to describe the risk of infection from sharing injection equipment. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 3, 1010–1016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, D.A., Wu, S-Y., & Farley, T.A. (2004). Comparing the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 37, 1404–1414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corso, P.S., & Haddix, A.C. (2003). Time effects. In: A.C. Haddix, S.M. Teutsch, & P.A. Shaffer (eds.), Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation (second edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 92–102.Google Scholar
  5. Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (third edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., & Weinstein, M.C. (1996). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Grosse, S.D. (2008). Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research, 8, 165–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haddix, A.C., Corso, P.S., & Gorsky, R.D. (2003). Cost of an intervention. In: A.C. Haddix, S.M. Teutsch, & P.A. Shaffer (eds.), Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation (second edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 57–75.Google Scholar
  9. Holtgrave, D.R., & Pinkerton, S.D. (1997). Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology, 16, 54–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holtgrave, D.R., Pinkerton, S.D., Jones, T.S., Lurie, P., & Vlahov, D. (1998). Cost and cost-effectiveness of increasing access to sterile syringes and needles as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology, 18 (suppl. 1), S133–S138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson, A.B., Farnham, P.G., Dean, H.D., Ekwueme, D.U., del Rio, C., Kamimoto, L., & Kellerman, S.E. (2006). The economic burden of HIV in the United States in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy: Evidence of continuing racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 43, 451–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pinkerton, S.D., & Abramson, P.R. (1998). The Bernoulli-process model of HIV transmission: Applications and implications. In: D.R. Holtgrave (ed.), Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New York: Plenum Press, 13–32.Google Scholar
  13. Pinkerton, S.D., Johnson-Masotti, A.P., Holtgrave, D.R., & Farnham, P.G. (2001). Using cost-effectiveness league tables to compare interventions to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS, 15, 917–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pinkerton, S.D., Johnson-Masotti, A.P., Holtgrave, D.R., & Farnham, P.G. (2002). A review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent sexual transmission of HIV in the United States. AIDS and Behavior, 6, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for AIDS Intervention ResearchMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations