PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1121–1131 | Cite as

Information Created to Evade Reality (ICER)

Things We Should Not Look to for Answers
Conference Paper

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis has been advocated in the health economics methods literature and adopted in a growing number of jurisdictions as an evidence base for decision makers charged with maximising health gains from available resources.

This paper critically appraises the information generated by cost-effectiveness analysis, in particular the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). It is shown that this ratio is used as comparative information on what are non-comparable options and hence evades the reality of the decision-maker’s problem. The theoretical basis for the ICER approach is the simplification of theoretical assumptions that have no relevance to the decision maker’s context. Although alternative, well established methods can be used for addressing the decision maker’s problem, faced with the increasing evidence of the theoretical and empirical failures of the cost-effectiveness approach, some proponents of the approach now propose changing the research question to suit the approach as opposed to adopting a more appropriate method for the prevailing and continuing problem.

As long as decision makers are concerned with making the best use of available healthcare resources, cost-effectiveness analysis and the ICER should not be where we look for answers.

Keywords

Decision Maker Incremental Cost Health Gain Mathematical Programming Technique Marginal Opportunity Cost 

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 54–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd ed. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ubel P, Hirth R, Chernew M, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1637–1641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘NICE’ approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag Sci 2004; 7: 35–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Culyer A, et al. Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE: stepping back to sort out a confusion. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2091–2100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Culyer A. Ought NICE to have a cost-effectiveness threshold? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: Kings Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 9–14Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rawlins M, Culyer A. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams A. What could be nicer than NICE? London: Office of Health Economics, 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006; 11: 46–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorinc J. How much are drugs worth? A fledgling medical science attempts an answer. University of Toronto Magazine [online]. Available from URL: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/06Spring/drugs.asp [Accessed 2006 Apr 25]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial benefit programs: should ‘reasonable decisions’ lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? CMAJ 2003; 168: 849–851PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devlin N. An introduction to the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in decision making: what are the issues? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: Kings Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 16–24Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein’s (mis)application of economics to real world problems. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 469–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results. Health Policy 2003; 64: 207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 149–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doubilet P, Weinstein M, McNeil B. Use and misuse of the term ‘cost effective’ in medicine. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001; 323: 743–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weinstein M. Decision rules for incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2006: 469–478Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Decision rules in economic evaluation. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2006: 492–502Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torrance G, Thomas W, Sackett D. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programmes. Health Serv Res 1972; 7: 118–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen M, Bush J. Maximizing health system output with political and administrative constraints using mathematical programming. Inquiry 1976; 13: 215–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drummond M. Principles of economic appraisal in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good? Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mason J, Drummond M, Torrance G. Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables. BMJ 1993; 306: 570–572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Birch S, Donaldson C. Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. J Health Econ 1987; 6: 61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stinnett A, Paltiel D. Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 641–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technology: a potential prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid it. CMAJ 1993; 148: 913–924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fuchs V. Who shall live? Health, economics and social choice. New York: Basic Books, 1974Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Neumann P, Rosen A, Weinstein M. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1516–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ai]38.
    Smith R. The triumph of NICE. BMJ 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/0g [Accessed 2006 May 5]Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefit: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68–S80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Hout B, Al M, Gordon G, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Briggs A. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dowie J. Why cost effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ 2004; 13: 453–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Briggs A, O’Brien B, Blackhause G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Ann Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 377–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ 1996; 5: 513–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sendi P, Briggs A. Affordability and cost effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 2001; 10: 675–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Baltussen R, Adam T, Tan-Torres Edejer T, et al. What is generalized cost-effectiveness analysis? In: Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al., editors. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003: 3–15Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sculpher M, Claxton K, Akehurst R. Its just evaluation for decision making: recent developments in, and challenges for, cost-effectiveness research. In: Smith P, Ginelly L, Sculpher M, editors. Health policy and economics: opportunities and challenges. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2004: 8–41Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mayor S. News extra: NICE estimates that its recommendations have cost the NHS £575m. BMJ 2002; 325: 924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ 2004; 32: 227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics and Policy AnalysisMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations