Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2/2019

Open Access 01-02-2019 | Leading Article

Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future

Authors: Linda M. de Vries, Pieter H. M. van Baal, Werner B. F. Brouwer

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

There has been considerable debate on the extent to which future costs should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses of health technologies. In this article, we summarize the theoretical debates and empirical research in this area and highlight the conclusions that can be drawn for current practice. For future related and future unrelated medical costs, the literature suggests that inclusion is required to obtain optimal outcomes from available resources. This conclusion does not depend on the perspective adopted by the decision maker. Future non-medical costs are only relevant when adopting a societal perspective; these should be included if the benefits of non-medical consumption and production are also included in the evaluation. Whether this is the case currently remains unclear, given that benefits are typically quantified in quality-adjusted life-years and only limited research has been performed on the extent to which these (implicitly) capture benefits beyond health. Empirical research has shown that the impact of including future costs can be large, and that estimation of such costs is feasible. In practice, however, future unrelated medical costs and future unrelated non-medical consumption costs are typically excluded from economic evaluations. This is explicitly prescribed in some pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Further research is warranted on the development and improvement of methods for the estimation of future costs. Standardization of methods is needed to enhance the practical applicability of inclusion for the analyst and the comparability of the outcomes of different studies. For future non-medical costs, further research is also needed on the extent to which benefits related to this spending are captured in the measurement and valuation of health benefits, and how to broaden the scope of the evaluation if they are not sufficiently captured.
Footnotes
1
Future non-medical costs could also be categorized into future related and unrelated costs, to the same degree as future medical costs. However, in concordance with previous literature, we will not make this distinction and label all these costs here as future non-medical costs.
 
2
Note that adopting a societal perspective is not synonymous with taking a welfarist approach, which restricts welfare information to solely (individual) utilities. Extra-welfarism, allowing broader definitions of welfare including for example capabilities, is fully compatible with taking a societal perspective [22]. Hence, the issues addressed in this article are relevant for both approaches.
 
3
In these models, future medical costs are specified as related or unrelated on a cost level (expenditures conditional on survival, which do not change with an increase in the quantities of the intervention consumed, are unrelated). In practice, future medical costs are typically specified as related or unrelated on the level of the disease to be treated.
 
4
Numbers are based on table IV in [55] and in euros. Consumption costs in this study comprised both medical and non-medical consumption. Using the proportions from the original estimates [53], it can be derived that of the €28,642, the increase as a result of future non-medical consumption costs would be approximately €25,896 ((1-(13,623/142,074))*28,642), and the increase as a result of future non-medical costs would be €2746.
 
5
For an overview of country-specific pharmacoeconomic guidelines, see https://​tools.​ispor.​org/​peguidelines/​.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Garber AM, Sculpher MJ. Chapter eight: cost effectiveness and payment policy. In: Pauly MV, Mcguire TG, Barros PP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. p. 471–97. Garber AM, Sculpher MJ. Chapter eight: cost effectiveness and payment policy. In: Pauly MV, Mcguire TG, Barros PP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. p. 471–97.
2.
go back to reference Rappange DR, et al. Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(10):815–30.PubMedCrossRef Rappange DR, et al. Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(10):815–30.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference van Lier LI, et al. Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(7):993–1008.PubMedCrossRef van Lier LI, et al. Consensus-based cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of costs in health economic evaluations: a European Delphi study. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(7):993–1008.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
5.
go back to reference Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1–31.PubMedCrossRef Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1–31.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):33–64.PubMedCrossRef Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):33–64.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nyman JA. Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 2004;13(5):417–27.PubMedCrossRef Nyman JA. Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 2004;13(5):417–27.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nyman JA. More on survival consumption costs in cost-utility analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15:319–22.CrossRef Nyman JA. More on survival consumption costs in cost-utility analysis. Health Econ. 2006;15:319–22.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Richardson JR, Olsen JA. In defence of societal sovereignty: a comment on Nyman ‘the inclusion of survivor consumption in CUA’. Health Econ. 2006;15:311–3.PubMedCrossRef Richardson JR, Olsen JA. In defence of societal sovereignty: a comment on Nyman ‘the inclusion of survivor consumption in CUA’. Health Econ. 2006;15:311–3.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gandjour A. Consumption costs and earnings during added years of life: a reply to Nyman. Health Econ. 2006;15:315–7.PubMedCrossRef Gandjour A. Consumption costs and earnings during added years of life: a reply to Nyman. Health Econ. 2006;15:315–7.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lundin D, Ramsberg J. On survival consumption costs: a reply to Nyman. Health Econ. 2008;17:293–7.PubMedCrossRef Lundin D, Ramsberg J. On survival consumption costs: a reply to Nyman. Health Econ. 2008;17:293–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference van Baal PHM, et al. Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a “perfect” cost-utility ratio. Health Econ. 2007;16:421–33.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PHM, et al. Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a “perfect” cost-utility ratio. Health Econ. 2007;16:421–33.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar N. On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Health Econ. 2008;17:579–91.PubMedCrossRef Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar N. On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Health Econ. 2008;17:579–91.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Meltzer D. Response to “Future costs and the future of cost-effectiveness analysis”. J Health Econ. 2008;27:822–5.PubMedCrossRef Meltzer D. Response to “Future costs and the future of cost-effectiveness analysis”. J Health Econ. 2008;27:822–5.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Feenstra TL, et al. Future costs in economic evaluation: a comment on Lee. J Health Econ. 2008;27(6):1645–9.PubMedCrossRef Feenstra TL, et al. Future costs in economic evaluation: a comment on Lee. J Health Econ. 2008;27(6):1645–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Nyman JA. Measurement of QALYS and the welfare implications of survivor consumption and leisure forgone. Health Econ. 2011;20(1):56–67.PubMedCrossRef Nyman JA. Measurement of QALYS and the welfare implications of survivor consumption and leisure forgone. Health Econ. 2011;20(1):56–67.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference van Baal PHM, Meltzer D, Brouwer W. Future costs, fixed healthcare budgets, and the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):237–48.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PHM, Meltzer D, Brouwer W. Future costs, fixed healthcare budgets, and the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):237–48.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Morton A, et al. Unrelated future costs and unrelated future benefits: reflections on NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Health Econ. 2016;25(8):933–8.PubMedCrossRef Morton A, et al. Unrelated future costs and unrelated future benefits: reflections on NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Health Econ. 2016;25(8):933–8.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ. 1973;2(2):147–57.CrossRef Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ. 1973;2(2):147–57.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the ‘societal perspective’ on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(4):371–7.CrossRef Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the ‘societal perspective’ on costs of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(4):371–7.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic analysis in health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2007. Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D. Economic analysis in health care. Chichester: Wiley; 2007.
26.
go back to reference Grima DT, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies: a case for excluding dialysis costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):981–9.PubMedCrossRef Grima DT, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies: a case for excluding dialysis costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):981–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference van Baal PHM, Meltzer D, Brouwer W, et al. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines should prescribe inclusion of indirect medical costs! A response to Grima et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):369–73.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PHM, Meltzer D, Brouwer W, et al. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines should prescribe inclusion of indirect medical costs! A response to Grima et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(5):369–73.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.PubMedCrossRef Weinstein MC, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRef Weinstein MC, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference van Baal PH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a low-calorie diet and orlistat for obese persons: modeling long-term health gains through prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1033–40.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a low-calorie diet and orlistat for obese persons: modeling long-term health gains through prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1033–40.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Barendregt JJ, Bonneux L, van der Maas PJ. The health care costs of smoking. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(15):1052–7.PubMedCrossRef Barendregt JJ, Bonneux L, van der Maas PJ. The health care costs of smoking. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(15):1052–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW. Does prevention save costs? Considering deferral of the expensive last year of life. J Health Econ. 2005;24(2):715–24.PubMedCrossRef Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW. Does prevention save costs? Considering deferral of the expensive last year of life. J Health Econ. 2005;24(2):715–24.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference van Baal PHM, et al. Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):175–87.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PHM, et al. Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):175–87.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Zweifel P, Felder S, Meiers M. Ageing of population and health care expenditure: a red herring? Health Econ. 1999;8(6):485–96.PubMedCrossRef Zweifel P, Felder S, Meiers M. Ageing of population and health care expenditure: a red herring? Health Econ. 1999;8(6):485–96.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference van Baal PHM, et al. Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs. Health Econ. 2011;20(4):432–45.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PHM, et al. Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs. Health Econ. 2011;20(4):432–45.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Assaria M. Health care costs in the English NHS: reference tables for average annual NHS spend by age, sex and deprivation group. CHE research paper 147. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2017. Assaria M. Health care costs in the English NHS: reference tables for average annual NHS spend by age, sex and deprivation group. CHE research paper 147. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2017.
39.
go back to reference van Baal PH, Hoogendoorn M, Fischer A. Preventing dementia by promoting physical activity and the long-term impact on health and social care expenditures. Prev Med. 2016;85:78–83.PubMedCrossRef van Baal PH, Hoogendoorn M, Fischer A. Preventing dementia by promoting physical activity and the long-term impact on health and social care expenditures. Prev Med. 2016;85:78–83.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Meltzer D. Future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2012. Meltzer D. Future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2012.
42.
go back to reference Kruse M, Sorensen J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an empirical assessment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:63–70.PubMedCrossRef Kruse M, Sorensen J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: an empirical assessment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13:63–70.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Johannesson M, Meltzer D, O’Conor RM. Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension. Med Decis Mak. 1997;17(4):382–9.CrossRef Johannesson M, Meltzer D, O’Conor RM. Incorporating future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertension. Med Decis Mak. 1997;17(4):382–9.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Manns B, et al. Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end-stage renal disease care. Health Econ. 2003;12(11):949–58.PubMedCrossRef Manns B, et al. Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end-stage renal disease care. Health Econ. 2003;12(11):949–58.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Meltzer D, et al. Effect of future costs on cost-effectiveness of medical interventions among young adults: the example of intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Med Care. 2000;38(6):679–85.PubMedCrossRef Meltzer D, et al. Effect of future costs on cost-effectiveness of medical interventions among young adults: the example of intensive therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Med Care. 2000;38(6):679–85.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Ramos IC, et al. Cost effectiveness of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in the Netherlands: a country adaptation analysis under the former and current Dutch. Value Health. 2017;20(10):1260–9.PubMedCrossRef Ramos IC, et al. Cost effectiveness of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in the Netherlands: a country adaptation analysis under the former and current Dutch. Value Health. 2017;20(10):1260–9.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost–benefit analysis? J Health Econ. 1999;18(6):681–708.PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost–benefit analysis? J Health Econ. 1999;18(6):681–708.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Cutler D, Deaton A, Lleras-Muney A. The determinants of mortality. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(3):97–120.CrossRef Cutler D, Deaton A, Lleras-Muney A. The determinants of mortality. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(3):97–120.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Tilling C, et al. In or out? Income losses in health state valuations: a review. Value Health. 2010;13(2):298–305.PubMedCrossRef Tilling C, et al. In or out? Income losses in health state valuations: a review. Value Health. 2010;13(2):298–305.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Adarkwah CC, Sadoghi A, Gandjour A. Should cost-effectiveness analysis include the cost of consumption activities? An empirical investigation. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):249–56.PubMedCrossRef Adarkwah CC, Sadoghi A, Gandjour A. Should cost-effectiveness analysis include the cost of consumption activities? An empirical investigation. Health Econ. 2016;25(2):249–56.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Drost RMWA, et al. Conceptualizations of the societal perspective within economic evaluations: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):251–60.PubMedCrossRef Drost RMWA, et al. Conceptualizations of the societal perspective within economic evaluations: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):251–60.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Ekman M. Consumption and production by age in Sweden: basic facts and health economic implications. Studies in health economics: modelling and data analysis of costs and survival. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2002. Ekman M. Consumption and production by age in Sweden: basic facts and health economic implications. Studies in health economics: modelling and data analysis of costs and survival. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics; 2002.
54.
go back to reference Gold MR, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. Gold MR, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
55.
go back to reference Borg S, et al. Cost effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(5):554–60.PubMedCrossRef Borg S, et al. Cost effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(5):554–60.PubMedCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Gros B, Soto Álvarez J, Ángel Casado M. Incorporation of future costs in health economic analysis publications: current situation and recommendations for the future. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(3):465–9.PubMedCrossRef Gros B, Soto Álvarez J, Ángel Casado M. Incorporation of future costs in health economic analysis publications: current situation and recommendations for the future. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(3):465–9.PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. 2016. Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. 2016.
58.
go back to reference The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. General guidelines for economic evaluations. 2003. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. General guidelines for economic evaluations. 2003.
59.
go back to reference Svensson M, Hultkrantz L. A comparison of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in practice: divergent policy practices in Sweden. Nordic J Health Econ. 2017;5(2):41–53.CrossRef Svensson M, Hultkrantz L. A comparison of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis in practice: divergent policy practices in Sweden. Nordic J Health Econ. 2017;5(2):41–53.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Heintz E, et al. The impact of health economic evaluations in Sweden. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh. 2014;108(7):375–82.CrossRef Heintz E, et al. The impact of health economic evaluations in Sweden. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh. 2014;108(7):375–82.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Davidson T. Experiences of including costs of added life years in health economic evaluations in Sweden. In: Pirhonen L, Davidson T, editors. Farmeconomia: health economics and therapeutic pathways. 2014;15(2):45–53. Davidson T. Experiences of including costs of added life years in health economic evaluations in Sweden. In: Pirhonen L, Davidson T, editors. Farmeconomia: health economics and therapeutic pathways. 2014;15(2):45–53.
62.
go back to reference The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Ändring i Läkemedelsförmånsnämndens allmänna råd (LFNAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar. 2015. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Ändring i Läkemedelsförmånsnämndens allmänna råd (LFNAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar. 2015.
63.
go back to reference Ändring i Tandvårds - och läkemedelsförmånsverkets allmänna råd (TLVAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar. 2017. Ändring i Tandvårds - och läkemedelsförmånsverkets allmänna råd (TLVAR 2003:2) om ekonomiska utvärderingar. 2017.
64.
go back to reference Sanders GD, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.PubMedCrossRef Sanders GD, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.PubMedCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Meltzer DO, Smith PC. Chapter seven: theoretical issues relevant to the economic evaluation of health technologies. In: Pauly MV, Mcguire TG, Barros PP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. p. 433–69. Meltzer DO, Smith PC. Chapter seven: theoretical issues relevant to the economic evaluation of health technologies. In: Pauly MV, Mcguire TG, Barros PP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011. p. 433–69.
66.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
67.
go back to reference Russell LB. Is prevention better than cure? Washington. DC: Brookings Institution; 1986. Russell LB. Is prevention better than cure? Washington. DC: Brookings Institution; 1986.
69.
go back to reference Reckers-Droog VT, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Looking back and moving forward: on the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2018;122(6):621–9.PubMedCrossRef Reckers-Droog VT, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Looking back and moving forward: on the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2018;122(6):621–9.PubMedCrossRef
71.
go back to reference Brouwer WBF, et al. When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision making. Eur J Health Econ. 2018. Brouwer WBF, et al. When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision making. Eur J Health Econ. 2018.
72.
go back to reference Brouwer WBF, Baltussen M, Rutten FFH. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar: or is it? Value Health. 2006;9(5):341–7.PubMedCrossRef Brouwer WBF, Baltussen M, Rutten FFH. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar: or is it? Value Health. 2006;9(5):341–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Future Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Past, Present, Future
Authors
Linda M. de Vries
Pieter H. M. van Baal
Werner B. F. Brouwer
Publication date
01-02-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0749-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

PharmacoEconomics 2/2019 Go to the issue