Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Value of Value of Information Methods to Decision-Making: What VOI Measures Enable Optimising Joint Research and Reimbursement Decisions Within a Jurisdiction?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Health Economics from Theory to Practice

Abstract

Faced with making a decision under uncertainty given current evidence of expected positive while uncertain INB such as the distribution for incremental net benefit in Fig. 5.2, what is the expected value of additional information? Given costs of obtaining additional evidence or information, is it worth undertaking further research or not? If it is optimal to undertake further research, how much research is optimal?

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(2):207–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andronis L, Barton P. Adjusting estimates of the expected value of information for implementation: theoretical framework and practical application. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(3):296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Lind RC. Uncertainty and the evaluation of public investment decision. Am Econ Rev. 1970;60:364–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Strategic plan. 2009. Sydney (NSW): Australian Government, 2007–9 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/nh80syn.htm. Accessed 17 May 2010.

  • Bernanke BS. Irreversibility, uncertainty and cyclical investment. Q J Econ. 1983;98(1):85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs AH, Mooney CZ, Wonderling DE. Constructing confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an evaluation of parametric and non-parametric techniques using Monte Carlo simulation. Stat Med. 1999;18(23):3245–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K, Sculpher M. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K, Thompson K. A dynamic programming approach to efficient clinical trial design. J Health Econ. 2001;20:797–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 2002;360:711–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S. Hospital performance including quality: creating incentives consistent with evidence-based medicine. PhD Dissertation, UNSW, Sydney; 2004. http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/public/adt-NUN20051018.135506/.

  • Eckermann, S., Coelli, T., Including quality attributes in efficiency measures consistent with net benefit: creating incentives for evidence based medicine in practice, Soc Sci Med 2013; 76: 159–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Pekarsky B. Can the real opportunity cost stand up: displaced services the straw man outside the room. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(4):319–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16:195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan AR. The option value of delay in health technology assessment. Med Decis Mak. 2008a;28:300–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan AR. Time and EVSI wait for no Patient. Value Health. 2008b;11:522–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan AR. Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. Health Econ. 2009;18:203–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan A. Optimal global VOI trials: better aligning manufacturer and decision maker interest and enabling feasible risk sharing. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31:393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Willan AR. Appropriately estimating EVSI with imperfect implementation: improving practice and reducing uncertainty with appropriate counterfactual consideration. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(3):282–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Briggs A, Willan AR. Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(2):172–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan A. The value of Value of Information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. PharmacoEconomics. 2010;28(9):699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm S, Dixon S, Stevens J. 2017. Assessing the Expected Value of Research Studies in Reducing Uncertainty and Improving Implementation Dynamics. Medical Decision Making published online 7 Jan 2017. http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav. DOI:10.1177/0272989X16686766.

  • Hutton EK, Kaufman K, Hodnett E, Amankwah K, Hewson SA, McKay D, Szalai JP, Hannah ME. External cephalic version beginning at 34 weeks’ gestation versus 37 weeks’ gestation: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:245–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent S, Briggs A, Eckermann S, Berry C. Are value of information methods ready for prime time? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):435–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon RM, Wonderling D, Grieve RD. Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared. Health Econ. 2010;19(3):316–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekarsky B. Trusts, constraints and the counterfactual: reframing the political economy of new drugs. PhD Thesis University of Adelaide. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekarsky BAK. The new drug reimbursement game: a regulator’s guide to playing and winning. New York: Springer; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H, Schlaiffer R. Applied Statistics Decision Theory. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruta D, Mitton C, Bate A, Donaldson C. Programme budgeting and marginal analysis: bridging the divide between doctors and managers. BMJ. 2005 Jun 25;330(7506):1501–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaiffer R. Probability and statistics for business decisions. New York: McGraw Hill; 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health. 2005;8(4):433–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ. Incorporating bayesian ideas into health-care evaluation. Stat Sci. 2004;19(1):156–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole J. The theory of industrial organisation, vol. 307-308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Medical Research Council. Mission statement. London: UK Medical Research Council; 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Missionstatement/index.htm. Accessed 17 May 2010.

  • Willan A, Briggs A. The statistical analysis of cost-effectiveness data. Chichester: Wiley and Sons; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ. 2010;19(5):549–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willan AR, Eckermann S. Expected value of information and pricing new health care interventions. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(6):447–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willan AR, Pinto EM. The expected value of information and optimal clinical trial design [published erratum appears in Stat Med 2006; 25: 720]. Stat Med. 2005a;24:1791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005b; 24:1791-1806. Correction: Statistics in Medicine 2006;25:720.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

    Simon Eckermann

Authors
  1. Simon Eckermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eckermann, S. (2017). The Value of Value of Information Methods to Decision-Making: What VOI Measures Enable Optimising Joint Research and Reimbursement Decisions Within a Jurisdiction?. In: Health Economics from Theory to Practice. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50613-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation