Mark Sculpher

Abstract In financially constrained health systems across the world, increasing emphasis is being placed on the ability to demonstrate that health care interventions are not only effective, but also cost-effective. This book deals with decision modelling techniques that can be used to estimate the value for money of various interventions including medical devices, surgical procedures, diagnostic technologies, and pharmaceuticals. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of the appropriate representation of uncertainty in the evaluative process and the implication this uncertainty has for decision making and the need for future research. This highly practical guide takes the reader through the key principles and approaches of modelling techniques. It begins with the basics of constructing different forms of the model, the population of the model with input parameter estimates, analysis of the results, and progression to the holistic view of models as a valuable tool for informing future research exercises. Case studies and exercises are supported with online templates and solutions. This book will help analysts understand the contribution of decision-analytic modelling to the evaluation of health care programmes. ABOUT THE SERIES: Economic evaluation of health interventions is a growing specialist field, and this series of practical handbooks will tackle, in-depth, topics superficially addressed in more general health economics books. Each volume will include illustrative material, case histories and worked examples to encourage the reader to apply the methods discussed, with supporting material provided online. This series is aimed at health economists in academia, the pharmaceutical industry and the health sector, those on advanced health economics courses, and health researchers in associated fields.

IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.

Decision-making in health care is inevitably undertaken in a context of uncertainty concerning the effectiveness and costs of health care interventions and programmes. One method that has been suggested to represent this uncertainty is the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. This technique, which directly addresses the decision-making problem, has advantages over confidence interval estimation for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, despite these advantages, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves have yet to be widely adopted within the field of economic evaluation of health care technologies. In this paper we consider the relationship between cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and decision-making in health care, suggest the introduction of a new concept more relevant to decision-making, that of the cost-effectiveness frontier, and clarify the use of these techniques when considering decisions involving multiple interventions. We hope that as a result we can encourage the greater use of these techniques.

In trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis baseline mean utility values are invariably imbalanced between treatment arms. A patient's baseline utility is likely to be highly correlated with their quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the follow-up period, not least because it typically contributes to the QALY calculation. Therefore, imbalance in baseline utility needs to be accounted for in the estimation of mean differential QALYs, and failure to control for this imbalance can result in a misleading incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. This paper discusses the approaches that have been used in the cost-effectiveness literature to estimate absolute and differential mean QALYs alongside randomised trials, and illustrates the implications of baseline mean utility imbalance for QALY calculation. Using data from a recently conducted trial-based cost-effectiveness study and a micro-simulation exercise, the relative performance of alternative estimators is compared, showing that widely used methods to calculate differential QALYs provide incorrect results in the presence of baseline mean utility imbalance regardless of whether these differences are formally statistically significant. It is demonstrated that multiple regression methods can be usefully applied to generate appropriate estimates of differential mean QALYs and an associated measure of sampling variability, while controlling for differences in baseline mean utility between treatment arms in the trial.

Objectives- T identify the literature on primary total hip replacement(THR) surgery that is relevant to the question of whether prostheses differ in their medium to longer term outcomes, and to synthesise this evidence. To use evidence regarding both costs and outcomes of primary THR to model how much more effective newer prostheses must be to justify higher costs