Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?
Zamora, Bernarda; Garrison, Louis P; Unuigbe, Aig; Towse, Adrian.
Afiliação
  • Zamora B; Office of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
  • Garrison LP; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Building, H Wing, H-375, Box 357630, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. lgarrisn@uw.edu.
  • Unuigbe A; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Building, H Wing, H-375, Box 357630, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Towse A; Office of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc ; 19(1): 13, 2021 Mar 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33648523
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including a new technology in a health plan benefit. The STF offered two major alternative approaches-augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)-while emphasizing the need to apply either a willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalize the inclusion decision.

METHODS:

The MCDA model uses the multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on the expected utility theory. In both ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs are derived in a hierarchical model with two high-level objectives which measure overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption.

RESULTS:

Even though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, we demonstrate that they can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. The consideration of how costs of medical technology, income, and severity of disease affect value trade-offs demonstrates, however, that reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA requires that health and consumption are either complements or independent attributes.

CONCLUSIONS:

We conclude that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in main factors considered by enrollees and decision makers-costs of the medical technology, income, and severity of disease. Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. Moreover, their similarity would be further enhanced if the QALY is used as the key attribute or anchor in the MCDA value function the choice between the two is a pragmatic question that is still open.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article