UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 9-11

of 'A short primer on cost-effectiveness analysis'

9
TI
The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
AU
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC
SO
JAMA. 1996;276(14):1172.
 
OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus-based recommendations guiding the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to improve the comparability and quality of studies. The recommendations apply to analyses intended to inform the allocation of health care resources across a broad range of conditions and interventions. This article, first in a 3-part series, discusses how this goal affects the conduct and use of analyses. The remaining articles will outline methodological and reporting recommendations, respectively.
PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS).
EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative procedures for measuring and assigning values to resource use and health outcomes.
CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel met 11 times during 2 1/2 years withPHS staff and methodologists from federal agencies. Working groups brought issues and preliminary recommendations to the full panel for discussion. Draft recommendations were circulated to outside experts and the federal agencies prior to finalization.
CONCLUSIONS: The panel's recommendations define a "reference case" cost-effectiveness analysis, a standard set of methods to serve as a point of comparison across studies. The reference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, and costs to all parties. Although CEA does not reflect every element of importance in health care decisions, the information it provides is critical to informing decisions about the allocation of health care resources.
AD
Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
PMID
10
TI
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
AU
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB
SO
JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253.
 
OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus-based recommendations for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This article, the second in a 3-part series, describes the basis for recommendations constituting the reference case analysis, the set of practices developed to guide CEAs that inform societal resource allocation decisions, and the content of these recommendations.
PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS).
EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative methods used in analyses. Recommendations were developed on the basis of theory where possible, but tempered by ethical and pragmatic considerations, as well as the needs of users.
CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts prepared by panel working groups weresolicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists.
CONCLUSIONS: The panel's methodological recommendations address (1) components belonging in the numerator and denominator of a cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio; (2) measuring resource use in the numerator of a C/E ratio; (3) valuing health consequences in the denominator of a C/E ratio; (4) estimating effectiveness of interventions; (5) incorporating time preference and discounting; and (6) handling uncertainty. Recommendations are subject to the¿rule of reason,¿balancing the burden engendered by a practice with its importance to a study. If researchers follow a standard set of methods in CEA, the quality and comparability of studies, and their ultimate utility, can be much improved.
AD
Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., USA.
PMID
11
TI
Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
AU
Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR
SO
JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339.
 
OBJECTIVE: This article, the third in a 3-part series, describes recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses (CEAs) intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports.
PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, convened by the US Public Health Service.
EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods and reporting practices.
CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists.
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are proposed to enhance the transparency of study methods, assist analysts in providing complete information, and facilitate the presentation of comparable cost-effectiveness results across studies. Adherence to reporting conventions and attention to providing information required to understand and interpret study results will improve the relevance and accessibility of CEAs.
AD
Department of Maternal and Child Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass, USA.
PMID