Dealing with Bad Risk in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The Cost-Effectiveness Risk-Aversion Curve.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
accepted:
15
10
2020
pubmed:
1
11
2020
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
31
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cost-effectiveness analysis has been advocated and is widely used to inform policy and decision makers in setting priorities for resource allocation. Since the costs and effects of health care interventions are uncertain, much research interest has focused on handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. The most widely used method to summarize uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis is the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, which estimates the probability that an intervention is cost effective for a wide range of threshold ratios. However, by estimating the uncertainty associated with incremental costs and effects, information about the uncertainty associated with the costs and effects of the individual programs is lost, which may be important to inform risk-averse decision makers. In the present paper, we suggest to penalize the expected net monetary benefit (NMB) of a program for its downside risk (i.e. bad risk), which preserves the uncertainty of the individual programs and rank orders programs according to their risk-adjusted NMB. The cost-effectiveness risk-aversion curve (CERAC) is introduced, which estimates the net benefit-to-risk ratio for a wide range of threshold rations. The CERAC is a helpful additional tool to inform decision and policy makers who are risk averse, and can easily be constructed using the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33128734
doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00969-5
pii: 10.1007/s40273-020-00969-5
pmc: PMC7867557
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
161-169Références
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Sep;57(6):969-74
pubmed: 12878098
Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
pubmed: 7827647
Health Econ. 2001 Sep;10(6):499-508
pubmed: 11550291
Value Health. 2004 Sep-Oct;7(5):595-601
pubmed: 15367254
J Health Econ. 1992 Oct;11(3):279-96
pubmed: 10122540
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2002;1(3):135-9
pubmed: 14619264
Value Health. 2008 Sep-Oct;11(5):886-97
pubmed: 18489513
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):405-15
pubmed: 15127421
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 May;38(5):443-458
pubmed: 32096146
Health Econ. 2005 Jul;14(7):655-67
pubmed: 15678518
Pharmacoeconomics. 1996 Feb;9(2):113-20
pubmed: 10160090
Health Econ. 1999 May;8(3):257-61
pubmed: 10348420
Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2004 Sep;4(3):199-210
pubmed: 15277778
Health Econ. 2005 May;14(5):457-70
pubmed: 15386661
Health Econ. 1998 Dec;7(8):723-40
pubmed: 9890333
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2 Suppl):S68-80
pubmed: 9566468
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998 Summer;14(3):467-71
pubmed: 9780533
Health Econ. 2002 Mar;11(2):175-80
pubmed: 11921315
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Feb;31(2):93-100
pubmed: 23329426
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1207-14
pubmed: 16336015
J Health Econ. 1999 Jun;18(3):341-64
pubmed: 10537899
N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):716-21
pubmed: 402576
Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2008 Jun;8(2):113-21
pubmed: 18351456
Health Econ. 2001 Oct;10(7):675-80
pubmed: 11747050
Health Econ. 2001 Dec;10(8):779-87
pubmed: 11747057
J Health Econ. 1983 Aug;2(2):161-5
pubmed: 10310324
Med Care. 2000 May;38(5):460-8
pubmed: 10800973