Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 12/2008

01-12-2008 | Current Opinion

Modelling Downstream Effects in the Presence of Technological Change

Author: Dr Duncan Mortimer

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 12/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Downstream effects are typically evaluated given current technology and current practice patterns rather than for technology and practice patterns that will be available at the time when downstream effects accrue. Where a relatively short time horizon can be expected to capture all relevant costs and effects, the current approach is unlikely to introduce substantial error into estimates of the costs and benefits attributed to an intervention; the estimates will remain valid so long as the context to which estimates relate remains unchanged. However, for longer time horizons, the magnitude of error associated with the current approach might be substantial. This paper describes three strategies for incorporating uncertainty associated with technological change into modeled economic evaluations: (i) discounting; (ii) within-trial analysis; and (iii) threshold/sensitivity analysis with horizon scanning. The appropriateness of each strategy for handling uncertainty associated with technological change is then considered under various possible situations defined over the characteristics of technological change (pace and whether technological change produces interventions that are dominant, cost increasing or cost saving) and the characteristics of downstream effects (proximity and the sensitivity of policy recommendations to their inclusion/exclusion). Selecting the appropriate strategy (or strategies) for the situation should permit estimation of more realistic upper and lower bounds around base-case estimates.
Footnotes
1
A DMUC implies that increments in the consumption of our relatively wealthy future selves have a lower value than increments in present consumption. Where economic growth is a function of technological advance, the hypothesized decline in the marginal utility of future consumption will also vary in line with technological advance. However, there are many who have questioned the existence of a diminishing marginal utility for future lives or life-years.[10,20]
 
2
Where funds available for current programmes might instead be invested to obtain increased funding for future programmes, an argument can be made for ‘induced’ discounting at the MIRR in the next best alternative programme.[19,21] Because the MIRR is a function of the production technology available, the appropriate discount rate will vary in line with technological advance. However, a number of counter arguments have been forwarded in the literature against this type of ‘induced’ discounting.[9,18]
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996: 247–75 Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996: 247–75
2.
go back to reference Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 1472–214 Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 1472–214
4.
go back to reference Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3 (2): 95–104PubMedCrossRef Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3 (2): 95–104PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Buxton M, Drummond M, Van Hout B, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217–27PubMedCrossRef Buxton M, Drummond M, Van Hout B, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217–27PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Salomon J, Weinstein MC, Goldie S. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329: 733–6PubMedCrossRef Salomon J, Weinstein MC, Goldie S. Taking account of future technology in cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2004; 329: 733–6PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Grieve R. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of new interventions: how can technological change be incorporated? In: Roberts J, editor. The economics of infectious disease. London: Oxford University Press, 2006 Grieve R. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of new interventions: how can technological change be incorporated? In: Roberts J, editor. The economics of infectious disease. London: Oxford University Press, 2006
9.
go back to reference Murray C. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray C, Lopez MA, editors. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. WHO: Harvard University Press, 1996: 1–98 Murray C. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray C, Lopez MA, editors. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. WHO: Harvard University Press, 1996: 1–98
10.
go back to reference Viscusi WK. Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 125–47CrossRef Viscusi WK. Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 125–47CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (31): 300–6 Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (31): 300–6
12.
go back to reference Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT, et al. Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2003; 1 (1): 8PubMedCrossRef Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT, et al. Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2003; 1 (1): 8PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, et al. Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries. Am Econ Rev 1994; 84 (1): 66–83 Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, et al. Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries. Am Econ Rev 1994; 84 (1): 66–83
14.
go back to reference Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff 2001; 20 (5): 11–29CrossRef Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff 2001; 20 (5): 11–29CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Cutler DM, Rosen A, Vijan S. The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960–2000. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (9): 920–7PubMedCrossRef Cutler DM, Rosen A, Vijan S. The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960–2000. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 (9): 920–7PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Porter R. The greatest benefit to mankind: a medical history of humanity from antiquity to the present. London: Harper Collins, 1997 Porter R. The greatest benefit to mankind: a medical history of humanity from antiquity to the present. London: Harper Collins, 1997
17.
go back to reference Weatherall DJ. Science and the quiet art: the role of research in medicine. New York: Rockefeller University, W. W. Norton, and Oxford University Press, 1995 Weatherall DJ. Science and the quiet art: the role of research in medicine. New York: Rockefeller University, W. W. Norton, and Oxford University Press, 1995
18.
go back to reference Sheldon TA. Discounting in health care decision-making: time for a change? J Public Health Med 1992; 14 (3): 250–6PubMed Sheldon TA. Discounting in health care decision-making: time for a change? J Public Health Med 1992; 14 (3): 250–6PubMed
19.
20.
21.
go back to reference Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 93–103PubMedCrossRef Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 93–103PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Calvert MJ, Freemantle N, Yao G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the CARE-HF trial. Eur Heart J 2005; 26 (24): 2681–8PubMedCrossRef Calvert MJ, Freemantle N, Yao G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the CARE-HF trial. Eur Heart J 2005; 26 (24): 2681–8PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond M, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006; 15: 677–87PubMedCrossRef Sculpher M, Claxton K, Drummond M, et al. Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006; 15: 677–87PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–24PubMedCrossRef Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–24PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sculpher M, Poole L, Cleland J, et al. Low doses versus high doses of the angiotensin convertingenzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. Eur J Heart Fail 2000; 2: 447–54PubMedCrossRef Sculpher M, Poole L, Cleland J, et al. Low doses versus high doses of the angiotensin convertingenzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. Eur J Heart Fail 2000; 2: 447–54PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Owen J, Haese R, Haese S, et al. Growth and Decay Revisited. Adelaide: Haese & Harris Publications, 2004: 99–100 & 112–4 Owen J, Haese R, Haese S, et al. Growth and Decay Revisited. Adelaide: Haese & Harris Publications, 2004: 99–100 & 112–4
Metadata
Title
Modelling Downstream Effects in the Presence of Technological Change
Author
Dr Duncan Mortimer
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 12/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00003

Other articles of this Issue 12/2008

PharmacoEconomics 12/2008 Go to the issue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgement