RSM logo
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J Health Serv Res Policy 2006;11:46-51
doi:10.1258/135581906775094235
© 2006 Royal Society of Medicine Press

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Birch, S.
Right arrow Articles by Gafni, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Essays

The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold

Stephen Birch, Amiram Gafni


Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada

It has been suggested that scepticism among decision-makers about using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is caused in part by the low level of the cost-effectiveness 'thresholds' in the economic evaluation literature. This has led Ubel and colleagues to call for higher threshold values of US$200,000 or more per quality-adjusted life-year. We show that these arguments fail to identify the objective of CEA and hence do not consider whether or how the threshold relates to this objective. We show that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) cannot be used to identify an efficient use of resources – the 'biggest bang for the bucks' – allocated to health care. On the contrary, the practical consequence of using the ICER approach is shown to be an increase in health care expenditures, or 'bigger bucks for making a bang', without any evidence of the bang being bigger (i.e. that this leads to an increase in benefits to the population). We present an alternative approach that provides an unambiguous method of determining whether a new intervention leads to an increase in health gains from whatever resources are to be made available to health care decision-makers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Med Decis MakingHome page
B. Jahn, K. P. Pfeiffer, E. Theurl, J.-E. Tarride, and R. Goeree
Capacity Constraints and Cost-Effectiveness: A Discrete Event Simulation for Drug-Eluting Stents
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2010; 30(1): 16 - 28.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
J. N. Cormier, Y. Xing, M. Ding, S. B. Cantor, K. J. Salter, J. E. Lee, P. F. Mansfield, J. E. Gershenwald, and M. I. Ross
Cost Effectiveness of Adjuvant Interferon in Node-Positive Melanoma
J. Clin. Oncol., June 10, 2007; 25(17): 2442 - 2448.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]