Public Health Services and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis as an aid to decision making has been increasingly publicized and discussed during the past two to three decades. However, the total body of cost-effectiveness analyses in health care is actually rather small, and high-quality studies are rather rare. Furthermore, the applications of economic analysis to health policy have been hampered by a number of problems, including those that are methodological and contextual. We consider a number of areas of public health policy but pay special attention to a growing area of inquiry and application: the overall coverage of health services. Cost-effectiveness analysis has played a relatively small role in general coverage decisions, but in recent years, it has been applied increasingly to decisions concerning pharmaceutical coverage. We speculate on concerning reasons for this particular focus in costeffectiveness analysis. Future progress will depend heavily on discussion and consensus building.

Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases

“…Such risk reduction interventions, even if modest, could cumulatively yield substantial benefits. Given the considerable cost of such interventions, public health interventions are increasingly subject to economic evaluation [15–17]. Economic evaluations comprise the comparative analysis of two or more healthcare interventions in terms of their costs and consequences.…”

Economic evaluation of drug abuse treatment and HIV prevention programs in pregnant women: A systematic review

“…Guidelines recommend that (1) all costs are reported from the societal perspective, (2) cost estimates are converted to a common year, (3) a rate of 3% is used to discount future outcomes and costs to present value, (4) quality-adjusted life years are used as the outcome metric, (5) sensitivity analysis should be performed to buffer for possible error (26). Since publication of the Panel’s recommendations, there has been some improvement in the methods used over time (3, 7, 8, 43, 44, 47), however this review, and others (7, 25, 61), indicate economic evaluations are still not entirely adopting the Panel’s recommendations nor being diffused widely (68). The persistence of methodological problems in economic evaluations suggests there remains room for substantial improvement.…”

Making guidelines for economic evaluations relevant to public health in Australia

“…The World Health Organization identified a number of public health programs targeting non‐communicable diseases provided the greatest ROI in a developing country setting 21 . Nevertheless, there are major shortfalls in economic evaluation evidence of public health programs 10,22–24 …”