Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses

Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine

Gillian D. Sanders, Peter J. Neumann, Anirban Basu, Dan W. Brock, David Feeny, Murray Krahn, Karen M. Kuntz, David O. Meltzer, Douglas K. Owens, Lisa A. Prosser, Joshua A. Salomon, Mark J. Sculpher, Thomas A. Trikalinos, Louise B. Russell, Joanna E. Siegel, Theodore G. Ganiats

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

482 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1093-1103
Number of pages11
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume316
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 13 2016

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Medicine
Health
Administrative Personnel
Health Care Sector
Research Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Equipment and Supplies
Publications
Consensus
Public Health
Economics

Cite this

Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses : Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. / Sanders, Gillian D.; Neumann, Peter J.; Basu, Anirban; Brock, Dan W.; Feeny, David; Krahn, Murray; Kuntz, Karen M.; Meltzer, David O.; Owens, Douglas K.; Prosser, Lisa A.; Salomon, Joshua A.; Sculpher, Mark J.; Trikalinos, Thomas A.; Russell, Louise B.; Siegel, Joanna E.; Ganiats, Theodore G.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 316, No. 10, 13.09.2016, p. 1093-1103.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, Brock, DW, Feeny, D, Krahn, M, Kuntz, KM, Meltzer, DO, Owens, DK, Prosser, LA, Salomon, JA, Sculpher, MJ, Trikalinos, TA, Russell, LB, Siegel, JE & Ganiats, TG 2016, 'Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine', JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 316, no. 10, pp. 1093-1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
Sanders, Gillian D. ; Neumann, Peter J. ; Basu, Anirban ; Brock, Dan W. ; Feeny, David ; Krahn, Murray ; Kuntz, Karen M. ; Meltzer, David O. ; Owens, Douglas K. ; Prosser, Lisa A. ; Salomon, Joshua A. ; Sculpher, Mark J. ; Trikalinos, Thomas A. ; Russell, Louise B. ; Siegel, Joanna E. ; Ganiats, Theodore G. / Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses : Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016 ; Vol. 316, No. 10. pp. 1093-1103.
@article{7398075f2edc420a98b27aa72723ccba,
title = "Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Sanders, {Gillian D.} and Neumann, {Peter J.} and Anirban Basu and Brock, {Dan W.} and David Feeny and Murray Krahn and Kuntz, {Karen M.} and Meltzer, {David O.} and Owens, {Douglas K.} and Prosser, {Lisa A.} and Salomon, {Joshua A.} and Sculpher, {Mark J.} and Trikalinos, {Thomas A.} and Russell, {Louise B.} and Siegel, {Joanna E.} and Ganiats, {Theodore G.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2016.12195",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "316",
pages = "1093--1103",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses

T2 - Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine

AU - Sanders, Gillian D.

AU - Neumann, Peter J.

AU - Basu, Anirban

AU - Brock, Dan W.

AU - Feeny, David

AU - Krahn, Murray

AU - Kuntz, Karen M.

AU - Meltzer, David O.

AU - Owens, Douglas K.

AU - Prosser, Lisa A.

AU - Salomon, Joshua A.

AU - Sculpher, Mark J.

AU - Trikalinos, Thomas A.

AU - Russell, Louise B.

AU - Siegel, Joanna E.

AU - Ganiats, Theodore G.

PY - 2016/9/13

Y1 - 2016/9/13

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995877260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995877260&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2016.12195

DO - 10.1001/jama.2016.12195

M3 - Review article

VL - 316

SP - 1093

EP - 1103

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 10

ER -