Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches

Abstract

Many countries use the cost–effectiveness thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization’s Choosing Interventions that are Cost–Effective project (WHO-CHOICE) when evaluating health interventions. This project sets the threshold for cost–effectiveness as the cost of the intervention per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted less than three times the country’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Highly cost–effective interventions are defined as meeting a threshold per DALY averted of once the annual GDP per capita. We argue that reliance on these thresholds reduces the value of cost–effectiveness analyses and makes such analyses too blunt to be useful for most decision-making in the field of public health. Use of these thresholds has little theoretical justification, skirts the difficult but necessary ranking of the relative values of locally-applicable interventions and omits any consideration of what is truly affordable. The WHO-CHOICE thresholds set such a low bar for cost–effectiveness that very few interventions with evidence of efficacy can be ruled out. The thresholds have little value in assessing the trade-offs that decision-makers must confront. We present alternative approaches for applying cost–effectiveness criteria to choices in the allocation of health-care resources.

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in Bulgaria: measuring health benefit by effectively treated patient-years*

“…More often than not, the magnitude of this threshold has little or no empirical foundation; in Bulgaria, no mandatory consensus standard exists for it. On the other hand, the often adduced WHO-CHOICE threshold of 1 to 3 times GDP per capita [55], also cited by the National Council of Pricing an Reimbursement [56], has several well-acknowledged shortcomings [57,58] and is therefore contentious. Invoking thresholds that do not reflect the opportunity costs of a particular health care system is not expedient to advance the health-related well-being of the population it serves.…”

A systematic review of the health economic consequences of quadrivalent influenza vaccination

“…However, most countries do not have an official willingnessto-pay (WTP) threshold, whereas the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK considers a WTP threshold of US$29,070-43,600 (£20,000-30,000) per QALY for vaccines [45]. When no official thresholds were available, studies often referred to WTP thresholds used in earlier published cost-effectiveness studies or to recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), suggesting that an intervention is cost-effective if the ICER is below three times the gross domestic product per capita of a country [46]. Applying this WHO recommendation on the For Lee et al [27], reductions in influenza cases and deaths were directly adapted from Reed et al [42].…”

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent road traffic injuries in low- and middle-income countries: A literature review

“…There are many thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions in the literature (e.g. thresholds based on per capita national incomes, benchmark interventions and league tables), each with their own weakness (Eichler et al 2004;Marseille et al 2015) and subject to judgement. Therefore, by converting all the costs to US$2013 per DALYs averted, the findings are more comparable and decision makers can choose the cost-effectiveness thresholds that will be appropriate to their settings.…”