Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Economics Review 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Review

Estimating cost-effectiveness in public health: a summary of modelling and valuation methods

Authors: Kevin Marsh, Ceri J Phillips, Richard Fordham, Evelina Bertranou, Janine Hale

Published in: Health Economics Review | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

It is acknowledged that economic evaluation methods as they have been developed for Health Technology Assessment do not capture all the costs and benefits relevant to the assessment of public health interventions. This paper reviews methods that could be employed to measure and value the broader set of benefits generated by public health interventions. It is proposed that two key developments are required if this vision is to be achieved. First, there is a trend to modelling approaches that better capture the effects of public health interventions. This trend needs to continue, and economists need to consider a broader range of modelling techniques than are currently employed to assess public health interventions. The selection and implementation of alternative modelling techniques should be facilitated by the production of better data on the behavioural outcomes generated by public health interventions. Second, economists are currently exploring a number of valuation paradigms that hold the promise of more appropriate valuation of public health interventions outcomes. These include the capabilities approach and the subjective well-being approach, both of which offer the possibility of broader measures of value than the approaches currently employed by health economists. These developments should not, however, be made by economists alone. These questions, in particular what method should be used to value public health outcomes, require social value judgements that are beyond the capacity of economists. This choice will require consultation with policy makers, and perhaps even the general public. Such collaboration would have the benefit of ensuring that the methods developed are useful for decision makers.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S: The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008,12(7):1–175. iii, ix-x Williams I, Bryan S, McIver S: The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008,12(7):1–175. iii, ix-x
3.
go back to reference Drummond M, Weatherly H, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, Rice N, Sculpher M, Sowden A: Assessing the challenges of applying standard methods of economic evaluation to public health interventions. Public Health Research Consortium, York; 2007. Drummond M, Weatherly H, Claxton K, Cookson R, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, Rice N, Sculpher M, Sowden A: Assessing the challenges of applying standard methods of economic evaluation to public health interventions. Public Health Research Consortium, York; 2007.
4.
go back to reference Kentaro K, et al.: Classification of FEE studies in NHS EED according to ICD-10 categories. Cochrane Collaboration Colloquium, Ottawa; 2004. Kentaro K, et al.: Classification of FEE studies in NHS EED according to ICD-10 categories. Cochrane Collaboration Colloquium, Ottawa; 2004.
5.
go back to reference Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1996. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1996.
6.
go back to reference NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London; 2008. NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE, London; 2008.
9.
go back to reference NICE: Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels. Public health guidance 6, London; 2007. NICE: Behaviour change at population, community and individual levels. Public health guidance 6, London; 2007.
10.
go back to reference Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacot N, Glanville J: Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8: 1–172.PubMed Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacot N, Glanville J: Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8: 1–172.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Paisley S, Jones DR: Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical and methodological issues. Health Econ 2007,16(12):1277–1286. 10.1002/hec.1297PubMedCrossRef Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Paisley S, Jones DR: Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical and methodological issues. Health Econ 2007,16(12):1277–1286. 10.1002/hec.1297PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R: A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006, 15: 1295–1310. 10.1002/hec.1148PubMedCrossRef Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R: A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006, 15: 1295–1310. 10.1002/hec.1148PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006.
14.
go back to reference Kim SY, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination programmes. A focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008.,26(3): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18282015 Kim SY, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination programmes. A focused review of modelling approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 2008.,26(3): http://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​pubmed/​18282015
15.
go back to reference Caro JJ, Möller J, Getsios D: Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations? Value in health. 2001,13(8):1056–1060.CrossRef Caro JJ, Möller J, Getsios D: Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations? Value in health. 2001,13(8):1056–1060.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Pearce DW, Turner RK: Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead; 1990. Pearce DW, Turner RK: Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead; 1990.
17.
go back to reference Bateman IJ, Willis KG: Valuing normal preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in US EU and developing countries. OUP, Oxford; 1999. Bateman IJ, Willis KG: Valuing normal preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in US EU and developing countries. OUP, Oxford; 1999.
18.
go back to reference Jones-Lee MW: The value of transport safety. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1990, 6: 39–60. 10.1093/oxrep/6.2.39CrossRef Jones-Lee MW: The value of transport safety. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1990, 6: 39–60. 10.1093/oxrep/6.2.39CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Smith RD: The discrete willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines. Medical Decision Making 2000, 20: 194–206. 10.1177/0272989X0002000205PubMedCrossRef Smith RD: The discrete willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines. Medical Decision Making 2000, 20: 194–206. 10.1177/0272989X0002000205PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference HM Treasury: Green Book. HMT, London; 2003. HM Treasury: Green Book. HMT, London; 2003.
22.
go back to reference McDaid D, Needle J: Economic evaluation and public health: mapping the literature. Welsh Assembly. Health Promotion Division, Cardiff; 2006. McDaid D, Needle J: Economic evaluation and public health: mapping the literature. Welsh Assembly. Health Promotion Division, Cardiff; 2006.
23.
go back to reference Dolan P, Metcalfe R, Munro V, Christensen MC: Valuing lives and life years: anomalies, implications and an alternative. Health Econ Policy Law 2008, 3: 277–300.PubMed Dolan P, Metcalfe R, Munro V, Christensen MC: Valuing lives and life years: anomalies, implications and an alternative. Health Econ Policy Law 2008, 3: 277–300.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Dolan P, Metcalfe R: Valuing non-market goods: a comparison of preference-based and experience-based approaches. LSE working papers. 2007. Dolan P, Metcalfe R: Valuing non-market goods: a comparison of preference-based and experience-based approaches. LSE working papers. 2007.
26.
go back to reference Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P: Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Healtheconomics 2008, 17: 667–670. Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P: Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Healtheconomics 2008, 17: 667–670.
27.
go back to reference Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J: Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 2012,21(1):167–76. 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J: Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 2012,21(1):167–76. 10.1007/s11136-011-9927-2PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Dolan P, White M: How can measures of subjective wellbeing be used to inform public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2007, 2: 71–85. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00030.xPubMedCrossRef Dolan P, White M: How can measures of subjective wellbeing be used to inform public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2007, 2: 71–85. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00030.xPubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Peiró A: Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: some international evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics 2006, 35: 348–365. 10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.042CrossRef Peiró A: Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: some international evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics 2006, 35: 348–365. 10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.042CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Marsh K, Bertranou E: Can subjective well-being measures be used to value policy outcomes? The example of engagement in culture. Cultural Trends in press, ; Marsh K, Bertranou E: Can subjective well-being measures be used to value policy outcomes? The example of engagement in culture. Cultural Trends in press, ;
33.
go back to reference Romero C: Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental economics: an approximation. European Journal of Operational Research 1997, 96: 81–89. 10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00118-XCrossRef Romero C: Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental economics: an approximation. European Journal of Operational Research 1997, 96: 81–89. 10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00118-XCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Delvin N, Sussex J: Incorporating multiple criteria into HTA. Office of Health Economics, London; 2011. Delvin N, Sussex J: Incorporating multiple criteria into HTA. Office of Health Economics, London; 2011.
35.
go back to reference Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI: Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006,31(1):52–61. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012PubMedCrossRef Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI: Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med 2006,31(1):52–61. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI: Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: methods. Am J Prev Med 2006,31(1):90–96. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.011PubMedCrossRef Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI: Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: methods. Am J Prev Med 2006,31(1):90–96. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.011PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ: Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4: 3. 10.1186/1478-7547-4-3PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Wilson EC, Rees J, Fordham RJ: Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006, 4: 3. 10.1186/1478-7547-4-3PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Wilson EC, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham RJ: Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007,12(2):80–85. 10.1258/135581907780279495PubMedCrossRef Wilson EC, Sussex J, Macleod C, Fordham RJ: Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007,12(2):80–85. 10.1258/135581907780279495PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Claxton K, Devlin N: Briefing Paper for Methods Review Workshop on Structured Decision Making. NICE, London; 2011. Claxton K, Devlin N: Briefing Paper for Methods Review Workshop on Structured Decision Making. NICE, London; 2011.
Metadata
Title
Estimating cost-effectiveness in public health: a summary of modelling and valuation methods
Authors
Kevin Marsh
Ceri J Phillips
Richard Fordham
Evelina Bertranou
Janine Hale
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Health Economics Review / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 2191-1991
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-1991-2-17

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Health Economics Review 1/2012 Go to the issue