The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Lb, Russell; Mr, Gold; Je, Siegel; Daniels, Nicholas C; Weinstein, MC

doi:10.1001/jama.276.14.1172

Cited by 664 publications

(512 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

493

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…25 Standardized methods have been promulgated by the Panel on CostEffectiveness in Health and Medicine. [27][28][29] In brief, to demonstrate a clinical procedure is cost-effective requires the procedure be evaluated in the patient population in which it will be used, and that its cost, relative to the length or quality of life, is reasonable (typically less than $50 000 per year of life gained or quality adjusted life year). 25,30 Cost-effective analysis measures the outcomes relative to a group receiving a standard treatment.…”

Section: Methods For Cost Analysis Of Pharmacogenomic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacogenomic testing: the cost factor

Wedlund

León

2001

Pharmacogenomics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methods For Cost Analysis Of Pharmacogenomic Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacogenomic testing: the cost factor

Wedlund

León

2001

Pharmacogenomics J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is, therefore, evident how difficult it is to establish a threshold ICER to help guide and formulate policy decisions. 40 However, imperfections in cost-effectiveness analysis should not be an excuse for inaction. We believe that the previously mentioned analyses will help physicians better understand the expenditure implications of our medical decision making.…”

Section: What Polices or Interventions Can Be Used To Lower The Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

The High Cost of Cancer Drugs and What We Can Do About It

Siddiqui

Rajkumar

2012

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

218

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CEA is a useful tool for assessing the value of an intervention by identifying the procedures that provide the greatest improvement in outcome at the lowest cost [48]. (A brief primer on CEA is provided in the Materials and Methods.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patientderived utility measures of health allow for comparison of the value of an intervention both within a specialty and across heterogeneous fields within medicine. As such, cost utility analysis is the preferred modality for reporting of medical decision analysis [48,52].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Status of Cost Utility Analyses in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Nwachukwu

Bozic

Schairer

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), although considered to be highly beneficial, is associated with substantial costs to the US healthcare system. Cost utility analysis has become an increasingly important means to objectively evaluate the value of a healthcare intervention from the perspective of both extending the quantity and improving the quality of life. Relatively little is known about the overall cost utility analysis evidence base in TJA. Questions/purposes The goals of this review were to (1) determine the cost utility of TJA interventions; (2) critically assess the quality of published US-based cost utility analyses using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument; and (3) determine what characteristics were common among studies receiving a high quality score. Methods A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile findings and critically appraise US-based cost utility analysis studies for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Based on review of 676 identified articles, 23 studies were included. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess study quality and one-sided Fisher's exact tests were applied to analyze the predictors of high-quality cost utility analysis. Results Very few studies compare the cost utility of TJA versus nonoperative intervention; however, the available evidence suggests that TJA can be cost-saving and is highly cost-effective compared with conservative management of end-stage arthritis. The majority of identified studies are focused on the cost utility of new implant technologies or comparisons among surgical alternatives. These studies suggest that the upfront costs associated with new technologies are cost-effective when there is a major reduction in a future cost. The quality of identified studies is quite high (Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument score: mean 86.5; range, 63-100). National funding source (p = 0.095) and lifetime horizon for analysis (p = 0.07) correlate with high-quality evidence but do not reach significance.

show abstract

The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Cited by 664 publications

References 0 publications

Pharmacogenomic testing: the cost factor

Pharmacogenomic testing: the cost factor

The High Cost of Cancer Drugs and What We Can Do About It

Current Status of Cost Utility Analyses in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About