Abstract
Over the last decade or so, a number of healthcare systems have used economic evaluations as a formal input into decisions about the coverage or reimbursement of new healthcare interventions. This change in the policy landscape has placed some important demands on the design and characteristics of economic evaluation and these are increasingly evident in studies being presented to decision makers. One challenge has been to make studies specific to the context in which the decision is being taken. This is because of the inevitable geographical variation in many of the parameters within an analysis.
There has been a series of important contributions to the published literature in recent years on how to quantify geographical heterogeneity within economic analyses based on randomised controlled trials. However, there are good reasons for economic evaluation for decision making to be undertaken using methods of evidence synthesis and decision analytical modelling, but issues of geographical variation still need to be handled appropriately.
The key requirements of economic evaluations for decision making within healthcare systems can be defined as follows: (i) a design that meets the objectives and constraints of the healthcare system; (ii) coherent and complete specification of the decision problem; (iii) inclusion of all relevant evidence; and (iv) recognition and appropriate handling of uncertainty. In satisfying these requirements, it is important to be aware of variation between jurisdictions, and this imposes some important analytical requirements on economic studies.
While many agencies have produced guidelines on preferred methods for healthcare economic evaluation, these exhibit considerable variation. Some of this variation can be justified by genuine differences between systems in clinical practice, objectives and constraints, while some of the variation relates to differences of opinion about appropriate analysis given methodological uncertainty. However, some of the variation in guidance is difficult to justify and is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the systems the analyses are seeking to inform.
Decision makers and analysts need to work together to streamline and where possible harmonise guidelines on methods for economic evaluations, whilst recognising legitimate variation in the needs of different healthcare systems. Otherwise, there is the risk that scarce resources will be wasted in producing country-specific analyses in situations where these are not justified. Expected value of information analyses are also emerging as a tool that could be considered by decision makers to guide their policy on the acceptance or non-acceptance of data from other jurisdictions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, et al. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom. Phase II: is health economics ‘for good or evil’? Health Policy 1999; 46: 143–157
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225–250
Commonwealth Department of Health HaCS. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra (ACT): APGS, 1992
Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ottawa (ON): Ministry of Health, 1994
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004
Langley PC. Formulary submission guidelines for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Colorado and Nevada: structure, application and manufacturer responsibilities. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 211–224
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Methods for development of NICE public health guidance. London: NICE, 2006
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715
Sculpher M, Claxton K, Akehurst R. It’s just evaluation for decision making: recent developments in, and challenges for, cost-effectiveness research. In: Smith PC, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, editors. Health policy and economics: opportunities and challenges. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227
Tarn TY, Smith MD. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connections 2004; 10 (4): 5–12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/news/index_new.asp [Accessed 2006 Oct 10]
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
Sculpher MJ, Claxton MJ, Drummond MJ, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006; 15: 677–687
Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–364
Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–347
Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004; 13: 405–415
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
Sculpher MJ, Claxton KP. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health 2005; 8: 433–446
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1055–1068
Willke RJ, Glick H, Polsky D, et al. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998; 7: 481–493
Cook JR, Drummond M, Glick H, et al. Assessing the appropriateness of combining economic data from multinational clinical trials. Stat Med 2003; 22: 1955–1976
Manca A, Rice N, Sculpher MJ, et al. Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models. Health Econ 2005; 14: 471–485
Pinto EM, Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis for multinational clinical trials. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1965–1982
Willan AR, Pinto EM, O’Brien BJ, et al. Country specific cost comparisons from multinational clinical trials using empirical Bayesian shrinkage estimation: the Canadian ASSENT-3 economic analysis. Health Econ 2005; 14: 327–338
Grieve R, Nixon R, Thompson SG, et al. Using multilevel models for assessing the variability of multinational resource use and cost data. Health Econ 2005; 14: 185–196
Manca A, Willan AR. ‘Lost in translation’: accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1101–1119
Ades AE, Sculpher MJ, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24: 1–19
Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, et al. Management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: how cost-effective are glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in the UK National Health Service? Int J Cardiol 2005; 100: 229–240
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Dawson J, et al. The use of probabilistic decision models in technology assessment: the case of hip replacement. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3 (2): 79–89
O’Connell D, Glasziou P, Hill S, et al. Results of clinical trials and systematic trials: to whom do they apply? In: Stevens A, Abrams K, Brazier R, et al., editors. The advanced handbook of methods in evidence based healthcare. London: Sage, 2001: 56–72
Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, de Backer G, et al. Are the WOSCOPS clinical and economic findings generalizable to other populations? A case study for Belgium. Acta Cardiol 2000; 55 (4): 239–246
Coyle D, Drummond MF. Analysing differences in the costs of treatment centres within economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 155–163
Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in health care: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (49): iii–iv, 1-192
Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 33: 1418–1424
Acknowledgements
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sculpher, M.J., Drummond, M.F. Analysis Sans Frontières. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 1087–1099 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00006
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00006