Simple non-invasive dental treatment can have a positive effect on appearance-related satisfaction. The use of child-centred approaches offers an invaluable insight into patient perspectives.

Time is an important aspect of health economic evaluation, as the timing and duration of clinical events, healthcare interventions and their consequences all affect estimated costs and effects. These issues should be reflected in the design of health economic models. This article considers three important aspects of time in modelling: (1) which cohorts to simulate and how far into the future to extend the analysis; (2) the simulation of time, including the difference between discrete-time and continuous-time models, cycle lengths, and converting rates and probabilities; and (3) discounting future costs and effects to their present values. We provide a methodological overview of these issues and make recommendations to help inform both the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses and the interpretation of their results. For choosing which cohorts to simulate and how many, we suggest analysts carefully assess potential reasons for variation in cost effectiveness between cohorts and the feasibility of subgroup-specific recommendations. For the simulation of time, we recommend using short cycles or continuous-time models to avoid biases and the need for half-cycle corrections, and provide advice on the correct conversion of transition probabilities in state transition models. Finally, for discounting, analysts should not only follow current guidance and report how discounting was conducted, especially in the case of differential discounting, but also seek to develop an understanding of its rationale. Our overall recommendations are that analysts explicitly state and justify their modelling choices regarding time and consider how alternative choices may impact on results.

No abstract

No abstract

Ireland is one of the few countries worldwide to have an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold. In 2012, an agreement between government and the pharmaceutical industry that provided substantial savings on existing medications set the threshold at €45,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This replaced a previously unofficial threshold of €20,000/QALY. According to the agreement, drugs within the threshold will be granted reimbursement, whereas those exceeding it may still be approved following further negotiation. A number of drugs far exceeding the threshold have been approved recently. The agreement only applies to pharmaceuticals. There are four reasons for concern regarding Ireland's threshold. The absence of an explicit threshold for non-drug interventions leaves it unclear if there is parity in willingness to pay across all interventions. As the threshold resembles a price floor rather than a ceiling, in principle it only offers a weak barrier to cost-ineffective interventions. It has no empirical basis. Finally, it is probably too high given recent estimates of a threshold for the UK based on the cost effectiveness of services forgone of approximately £13,000/QALY. An excessive threshold risks causing the Irish health system unintended harm. The lack of an empirically informed threshold means the policy recommendations of cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be considered as fully evidence- based rational rationing. Policy makers should consider these issues and recent Irish legislation that defined cost effectiveness in terms of the opportunity cost of services forgone when choosing what threshold to apply once the current industry agreement expires at the end of 2015

The cost-effectiveness threshold in health care systems with a constrained budget should be determined by the cost-effectiveness of displacing health care services to fund new interventions. Using comparative statics, we review some potential determinants of the threshold, including the budget for health care, the demand for existing health care interventions, the technical efficiency of existing interventions, and the development of new health technologies. We consider the anticipated direction of impact that would affect the threshold following a change in each of these determinants. Where the health care system is technically efficient, an increase in the health care budget unambiguously raises the threshold, whereas an increase in the demand for existing, non-marginal health interventions unambiguously lowers the threshold. Improvements in the technical efficiency of existing interventions may raise or lower the threshold, depending on the cause of the improvement in efficiency, whether the intervention is already funded, and, if so, whether it is marginal. New technologies may also raise or lower the threshold, depending on whether the new technology is a substitute for an existing technology and, again, whether the existing technology is marginal. Our analysis permits health economists and decision makers to assess if and in what direction the threshold may change over time. This matters, as threshold changes impact the cost-effectiveness of interventions that require decisions now but have costs and effects that fall in future periods.

Many of the CEAs reviewed appear to include insufficient comparator strategies. In particular, they omit strategies with relatively long screening intervals. Omitting relevant comparators matters particularly if it leads to the underestimation of ICERs for strategies around the cost-effectiveness threshold because these strategies are the most policy relevant from the CEA perspective. Consequently, such CEAs may not be providing the best possible policy guidance and lead to the mistaken adoption of cost-ineffective screening strategies.

Twenty years ago, the "Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine" published a landmark text setting out appropriate methods for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of health technologies. In the two decades since, the methods used for economic evaluations have advanced substantially. Recently, a "second panel" (hereafter "the panel") was convened to update the text and its recommendations were published in November 2016. The purpose of this paper is to critique the panel's updated guidance regarding the discounting of costs and health effects. The advances in discounting methodology since the first panel include greater theoretical clarity regarding the specification of discount rates, how these rates vary with the analytical perspective chosen, and whether the healthcare budget is constrained. More specifically, there has been an important resolution of the debate regarding the conditions under which differential discounting of costs and health effects is appropriate. We show that the panel's recommendations are inconsistent with this recent literature. Importantly, the panel's departures from previously published findings do not arise from an alternative interpretation of theory; rather, we demonstrate that this is due to fundamental errors in methodology and logic. The panel also failed to conduct a formal review of relevant empirical evidence. We provide a number of suggestions for how the panel's recommendations could be improved in future.