It would be important to acknowledge variations in the magnitude of the medical cost of obesity driven by different study design and methodology. Researchers and policy-makers need to be cautious on determining appropriate cost estimates according to their scientific and political questions.

ObjectivesTo determine what thresholds are most often cited in the cost-effectiveness literature for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), given various recommendations proposed and used in the literature to date, and thereafter to assess whether studies appropriately justified their use of threshold values.MethodsWe reviewed the contents of the Tufts Medical Center Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, a repository of all English language cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year averted studies indexed in PubMed. Our review included all catalogued cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year studies published from 2000 through 2015. We restricted attention to studies that investigated interventions in LMICs.ResultsOur analysis identified 381 studies (80%) focused on LMICs. Of these studies, 250 (66%) cited the World Health Organization’s 1 to 3 times gross domestic product per capita threshold. A full-text review of 60 (24%) of these articles (randomly selected) revealed that none justified use of this threshold in the particular country or countries studied beyond citing (generic) guideline documents.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness analysis can help inform health care spending, but its value depends on incorporating assumptions that are valid for the applicable setting. Rather than rely on commonly used, generic economic thresholds, we encourage authors to use context-specific thresholds that reflect local preferences.

Objectives. In 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine updated the seminal work of the original panel from 2 decades earlier. The Second Panel had an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers. In this article, we present key topics for future research and policy. Methods. During the course of its deliberations, the Second Panel discussed numerous topics for advancing methods and for improving the use of CEA in decision making. We identify and consider 7 areas for which the panel believes that future research would be particularly fruitful. In each of these areas, we highlight outstanding research needs. The list is not intended as an exhaustive inventory but rather a set of key items that surfaced repeatedly in the panel’s discussions. In the online Appendix , we also list and expound briefly on 8 other important topics. Results. We highlight 7 key areas: CEA and perspectives (determining, valuing, and summarizing elements for the analysis), modeling (comparative modeling and model transparency), health outcomes (valuing temporary health and path states, as well as health effects on caregivers), costing (a cost catalogue, valuing household production, and productivity effects), evidence synthesis (developing theory on learning across studies and combining data from clinical trials and observational studies), estimating and using cost-effectiveness thresholds (empirically representing 2 broad concepts: opportunity costs and public willingness to pay), and reporting and communicating CEAs (written protocols and a quality scoring system). Conclusions. Cost-effectiveness analysis remains a flourishing and evolving field with many opportunities for research. More work is needed on many fronts to understand how best to incorporate CEA into policy and practice.

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection is a major cause of cirrhosis and liver cancer, and many developing countries report intermediate-to-high prevalence. However, the economic impact of screening and treatment for HCV in high prevalence countries has not been well studied. Thus, we examined the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment for HCV infection for asymptomatic, average-risk adults using a Markov decision analytic model. In our model, we collected age-specific prevalence, disease progression rates for Egyptians, and local cost estimates in Egypt, which has the highest prevalence of HCV infection (~15%) in the world. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and conducted sensitivity analyses to determine how cost-effective HCV screening and treatment might be in other developing countries with high and intermediate prevalence. In Egypt, implementing a screening program using triple-therapy treatment (sofosbuvir with pegylated interferon and ribavirin) was dominant compared to no screening because it would have lower total costs and improve health outcomes. HCV screening and treatment would also be cost-effective in global settings with intermediate costs of drug treatment (~$8,000) and a higher sustained viral response rate (70–80%).

No abstract

We analyzed specialty drug coverage decisions issued by the largest US commercial health plans to examine variation in coverage and the consistency of those decisions with indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Across 3,417 decisions, 16 percent of the 302 drug-indication pairs were covered the same way by all of the health plans, and 48 percent were covered the same way by 75 percent of the plans. Specifically, 52 percent of the decisions were consistent with the FDA label, 9 percent less restrictive, 2 percent mixed (less restrictive in some ways but more restrictive in others), and 33 percent more restrictive, while 5 percent of the pairs were not covered. Health plans restricted coverage of drugs indicated for cancer less often than they did coverage of drugs indicated for other diseases. Using multivariate regression, we found that several drug-related factors were associated with less restrictive coverage, including indications for orphan diseases or pediatric populations, absence of safety warnings, time on the market, lack of alternatives, and expedited FDA review. Variations in coverage have implications for patients' access to treatment and health system costs.

Objective: Designing optimal insurance is important to ensure access to care for individuals that are most likely to benefit. We examined the potential impact of lowering patient cost-sharing for bariatric procedures. Methods: After defining 10 subgroups by body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey datasets to estimate the prevalence of each subgroup. The MarketScan claims database provided utilization rates and costs of bariatric procedures. Using an existing cost-effectiveness model, we estimated the economic value of bariatric procedures under various cost-sharing levels (0%–25%) with 2 frameworks: (1) a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis and (2) a new approach that incorporates utilization effects across subgroups. Results: The utilization rate was higher among individuals with T2DM than those without T2DM (90.4 vs. 59.1 cases per 100,000) for bariatric procedures, which were more cost-effective for those with T2DM and a higher BMI. After accounting for utilization effects, the economic value of bariatric surgery was $177 and $63 per individual from a lifetime and a 5-year time horizon, respectively. Under no patient cost-sharing for individuals with BMI≥40 and T2DM, utilization rates were expected to increase by 21 cases per 100,000, resulting in additional $2 realized value per patient and $7.07 million in returns at the US population level. Conclusions: Cost-sharing is a barrier to uptake of a clinical and cost-effective treatment for severe obesity. Reducing cost-sharing for patients with severe obesity and T2DM could potentially increase the utilization of bariatric procedures and result in greater economic value to payers.

The assumed time horizon in CEAs can substantially influence the value assessment of medical interventions. To capture all consequences, we encourage the use of time horizons that extend sufficiently into the future.