Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

Abstract

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.

Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future

“…If a shorter horizon is included, such as with a cross-sectional approach useful for evaluating budget impact and health at the population level, relevant outcomes may not be captured. However, extending the horizon long into the future may lead to increasing uncertainty surrounding estimates [37].…”

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Radiocesium Decorporation by a Prussian Blue Treatment and Stockpiling

“…With an equal discount rate of 3.5 % on benefits and costs remaining constant over time, we used a typical value used for discounting in health economics (range 3 to 5 %) [51]. Discounting is critical in the economic evaluation of treatments as in many cases it leads to a deterioration of the costeffectiveness ratio [52]. Our results also show that the limits of efficiency as a function of the stockpiling duration are reached ear-lier if using discounted compared to undiscounted values.…”

“…The Netherlands), we opted against this procedure, as the differentials between the rates (e.g. 4 % for costs and 1.5 % for effects/benefits) are difficult to justify empirically [52].…”

Budget impact and cost-effectiveness analyses of direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in Hong Kong

“…The analysis was conducted from a public institutional perspective of Hong Kong with relevant direct medical costs considered. The analytical time horizon was 5 years and all costs were discounted at 4% per year given the typical range of 3-5% in the health economic literature [21]. Costs are presented as the value in US dollars in 2015 (1 US dollar to 7.76 HK dollars).…”