Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion.

Results

Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values.

Conclusion

High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2015;391(10137):2356–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Parson S, Ingram M, Clarke-Cornwell AM, Symmons DPM. A Heavy Burden: The occurrence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions in the United Kingdom today. Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit; 2011. http://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:123774.

  4. Bridges S. Chronic pain. In: Craig R, Mindell J (eds). Health Survey for England—2011 health, social care and lifestyles. NHS Digital. https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publicationimport/pub09xxx/pub09300/hse2011-ch9-chronic-pain.pdf.

  5. Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koes BW, van Tulder M, Peul WC. Diagnosis and treatment of sciatica. BMJ. 2007;334:1313–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Valat JP, Genevay S, Marty M, et al. Sciatica. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):241–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine. 2008;33(22):2464–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain. 1995;62(2):233–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foster NE, Konstantinou K, Lewis M, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewis R, Wiliams N, Matar HE, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(39):1–578.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sculpher M, Drummond M. Wither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ. 2006;15:677–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Andronis L, Kinghorn P, Qiao S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for low back pain: a systematic literature review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim N, Yang B, Lee T, Kwon S. An economic analysis of usual care and acupuncture collaborative treatment on chronic low back pain: a Markov model decision analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2010;10:74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Norton G, McDonough C, Cabral H, Shwartz M, Burgess JF. Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy for low back pain from the commercial payer perspective. Spine. 2015;40(10):725–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Launois R, Henry B, Marty JR, et al. Chemonucleolysis versus surgical discectomy for sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation. A cost and quality-of-life evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;6:453–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lloyd A, Scott DA, Akehurst RL, Lurie-Luke E, Jessen G. Cost-effectiveness of low-level heat wrap therapy for low back pain. Value Health. 2004;7(4):413–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lloyd A, Scott DA, Akehurst RL, Lurie-Luke E, Jessen G. Cost-effectiveness of low-level heat wrap therapy for low back pain. Value Health. 2004;7(4):413–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wielage R, Bansal M, Wilson K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective. Value Health. 2013;16(2):334–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wielage R, Bansal M, Wilson K, Klein R, Happich M. Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a quebec societal perspective. Spine. 2013;38(11):936–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Igarashi A, Akazawa M, Murata T, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pregabalin for treatment of chronic low back pain in patients with accompanying lower limb pain (neuropathic component) in Japan. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:505–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fitzsimmons D, Phillips CJ, Bennett H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to manage patients with sciatica. Pain. 2014;155:1318–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Udeh BL, Costandi S, Dalton JE, et al. The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Pain Pract. 2015;15(2):107–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Skidmore G, Ackerman SJ, Bergin C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the X-STOP® interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis a comparison with conservative care and laminectomy. Spine. 2011;36(5):E345–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker SL, Anderson LH, Nelson T, Patel VV. Cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative care, laminectomy, and the superion interspinous spacer. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9(28):1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koenig L, Dall TM, Gu Q, Saavoss J, Schafer MF. How does accounting for worker productivity affect the measured cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(4):1069–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, Pope MH, Katz JN. Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine. 2000;25(9):1132–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim S, Hedjri S, Coyte PC, Raja YR. Cost-utility of lumbar decompression with or without fusion for patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2012;12(1):44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmier J, Halevi M, Maislin G, Ong K. Comparative cost effectiveness of coflex interlaminar stabilization versus instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6(1):125–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yaghoubi M, Moradi-Lakeh M, Moradi-Joo M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dynamic and static interspinous spacer for lumbar spinal stenosis compared with laminectomy. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;30:339.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bydon M, Macki M, Abt NB. The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2015;15(3):492–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parkinson B, Goodall S, Thavaneswaran P. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar artificial intervertebral disc replacement: driven by the choice of comparator. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(9):669–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vertuani S, Nilsson J, Borgman B, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive versus open surgery techniques for lumbar spinal fusion in Italy and the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2015;18(6):810–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Malter AD, Larson EB, Urban N, Deyo RA. Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy for the treatment of herniated intervertebral disc. Spine. 1996;21:1048–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13(2):89–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Phillips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:355–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jaime-Caro J, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM. Modeling good research practices-overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Karnon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ. 2003;12(11):837–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-3. Value Health. 2012;15:812–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dunn KM, Campbell P, Jordan KP. Long-term trajectories of back pain: cohort study with 7-year follow-up. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mahon R. Temporal uncertainty in cost-effectiveness decision models. PhD thesis. 2014. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8268/1/Ronan%20Mahon%20Thesis%20%28Feb%202015%29.pdf.

  42. Lofland JH, Pizzi LFKD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(3):165–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices. Utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess. 2002;18(1):94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel D, et al. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–2. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):678–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Management options for patients with low back disorders. 2011. https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/LBP-Final-Appraisal-6-24-11.pdf.

  48. van den Hout WB, Peul WC, Koes BW, et al. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336:1351–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hardman J. Cost effectiveness of epidural steroid injections to manage chronic lower back pain. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B. National Swedish Register for Lumbar Spine Surgery report 2008. http://www.4s.nu/pdf/Ryggregisterrapport_2008_eng_version.pdf.

  51. Tapp SJ, Martin BI, Tosteson TD, et al. Understanding the value of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis the case of interspinous spacer devices. Spine J. 2018;18:584–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. NICE 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword.

  53. Becker A, Held H, Redaelli M, et al. Low back pain in primary care. Costs of care and prediction of future health care utilization. Spine. 2010;35:1714–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Work Loss Data Institute. Official disability guidelines. 15th ed. Encinitas: Work Loss Data Institute; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Korean National Health & Nutrition survey. 2007. https://knhanes.cdc.go.kr.

  56. Ministry of Employment and Labor. http://laborstat.molab.go.kr.

  57. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health Interview Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm.

  58. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006;296:2451–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(3):165–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nadler SF, Steiner DJ, Erasala GN, et al. Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:1012–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Grotle M, Brox JI, Veierod MB, et al. Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain: patients consulting primary care for the first time. Spine. 2005;30(8):976–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Cassidy JD, Cote P, Carroll LJ, Kristman V. Incidence and course of low back pain episodes in the general population. Spine. 2005;30(24):2817–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Witt CM, Jena S, Selim D, et al. Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(5):487–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Thorpe L, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a short course of traditional acupuncture compared with usual care for persistent non-specific low back pain. BMJ. 2006;333(7569):623.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. IMS-Brogan Inc. Provincial Formulary Database. Kirkland, QC: Delta PATM; 2011.

  66. Ontario Case Costing Initiative. OCCI Costing Analysis Tool. 2010. http://www.occp.com. Accessed 24 Aug.

  67. Lamb SE, Lall R, Hansen Z, et al. A multicentred randomised controlled trial of a primary care based cognitive behavioural programme for low back pain. The Back Skills Training (BeST) trial. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X-STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication. Spine. 2005;30(12):1351–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation: four-year results for the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2008;33:2789–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2008;33:2108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. MEDPAR Limited Data Set (LDS)—Hospital (National). http://cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Files-for-Order/LimitedDataSets/MEDPARLDSHospitalNational.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2013.

  72. Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hardman J. Cost effectiveness of epidural steroid injections to manage chronic lower back pain. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;12:26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Glassman SD, Polly DW, Dimar JR, Carreon LY. The cost effectiveness of single-level instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion at 5 years after surgery. Spine. 2012;37:769–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine. 2011;36:2061–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:845–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Taguchi T, Igarashi A, Watt S, et al. Effectiveness of pregabalin compared with usual care for the treatment of chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component in Japan; the patient’s perspective. J Pain Res. 2015;8:487–97.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Parker SL, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, et al. Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):143–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Patel VV, Whang PG, Haley TR, et al. Two-year clinical outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing two interspinous spacers for treatment of moderate lumbar spinal stenosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Yano S, Hida K, Seki T, et al. A new ceramic interspinous process spacer for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(1 Suppl 1):108–13.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine. 1997;22:1123–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, et al. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2257–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Berg S, Tullberg T, Branth B, Olerud C, Tropp H. Total disc replacementcompared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:1512–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Medicare benefits schedule book, operating from 1 May 2010. Canberra, ACT: Department of Health Australia; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H, Auerbach JD. Decompression and coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial. Spine. 2013;38(18):1529–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B. National Swedish Register for Lumbar Spine Surgery report 2008. http://www.4s.nu/pdf/Ryggregisterrapport_2008_eng_version.pdf. Accessed 15 Jul 2014.

  87. Remmers A, Sharma U, LaMoreaux L, et al. Pregabalin treatment of patients with chronic low back pain [poster no. 660]. Presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the American Pain Society. Atlanta, GA; 2–5 Nov 2000.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Nadia Corp, Research Associate: Systematic Reviews at Keele University, assisted with the development of the search strategy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    James A. Hall, Kika Konstantinou, Martyn Lewis & Sue Jowett

  2. Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership Foundation Trust, Staffordshire, UK

    Kika Konstantinou

  3. Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    Martyn Lewis

  4. Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Raymond Oppong & Sue Jowett

  5. Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Reuben Ogollah

Authors
  1. James A. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kika Konstantinou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martyn Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raymond Oppong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reuben Ogollah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sue Jowett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JH, SJ, KK, RaO and ReO contributed to the study conception and design, design of the search strategies and article selection, and interpretation of data. JH conducted the search strategies and retrieved identified articles, performed data extraction, and drafted the manuscript. JH, SJ, KK, RaO, ML contributed to manuscript preparation. All authors approved the final version of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Hall.

Ethics declarations

This research was undertaken as part of a PhD project, with a 3-year research stipend for JAH funded by the Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University. KK was supported through a Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Senior Clinical Lecturer award.

Conflict of interest

ML, RaO, ReO, and SJ have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hall, J.A., Konstantinou, K., Lewis, M. et al. Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 17, 467–491 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00471-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00471-w

Search

Navigation