Objectives. The authors compiled a comprehensive league table of cost/QALY ratios, and a standardized table of analyses satisfying selected Reference Case criteria from the USPHS Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Methods. They identified 228 cost-utility analyses (CUAs) through literature searches, and abstracted data on methods and cost-utility ratios. The subset of "Panel-worthy" analyses used: a societal or broad health-care perspective, community or patient preference weights, net costs, incremental comparisons, and discounting of costs and QALYs. Results. The 228 CUAs included ratios for 647 interventions, ranging from cost-saving to $52,000,000/QALY (median = $12,000/QALY). The standardized table presents 112 ratios that met the "Panel-worthy" criteria, with articles published in recent years more likely to meet all of the criteria. Conclusions. The comprehensive league table (available on the Web) provides a useful reference, but ratios may not be comparable because of methodologic variations. The standardized table focuses on studies meeting basic methodologic criteria, potentially allowing for better comparison with future Reference Case analyses. Future studies should investigate the quality of analyses' underlying assumptions in addition to whether certain key procedural protocols were met. Key words: cost-utility analysis; league tables; economic evaluation. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:451-467)
References
1.
Gerard K.Cost-utility in practice: a policy maker's guide to the state of the art . Health Policy. 1992;21:249-79.
2.
Drummond M., Torrance G., Mason J.Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good? Soc Sci Med.1993;37: 33-40.
3.
Mason JMCost-per-QALY league tables: their role in pharmacoeconomic analysis . PharmacoEconomics. 1994;5:472-81.
4.
De Graeve D. , Nonneman W.Pharmacoeconomic studies: pitfalls and problems . Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996; 12:22-30.
5.
Neumann PJ, Stone P., Chapman RH, Sandberg E., Bell C.The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:964-72.
6.
Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B., Neumann PJMeasuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature . Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:111-24.
7.
Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JCAre methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving ? Med Decis Making. 1997;17:402-8.
8.
Adams ME, McCall NT, Gray DT, Orza MJ, Chalmers TCEconomic analysis in randomized control trialsMed Care. 1992;30:231-43.
9.
Udvarhelyi IS , Colditz GA, Rai A., Epstein AMCost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:238-44.
10.
Nord E.Toward quality assurance in QALY calculations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:37-45.
11.
Briggs A., Sculpher M.Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies . Health Econ. 1995;4: 335-71.
12.
Blackmore CC , Magid DJMethodologic evaluation of the radiology cost-effectiveness literature. Radiology. 1997;203:87-91.
13.
Graham JD, Corso PS, Morris JM, Segui-Gomez M., Weinstein MCEvaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical and public health measuresAnnu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:125-52.
14.
Jefferson T. , Smith R., Yee Y., Drummond M., Pratt M., Gale R.Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet . JAMA. 1998;280:275-7.
15.
Gerard K., Smoker I., Seymour J.Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn. Health Policy. 1999;46:217-38.
16.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds.). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1996.
17.
Weinstein MC , Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB, for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253-8.
18.
Laupacis A. , Feeny D., Detsky AS, Tugwell PXHow attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J1992;146:473-81.
19.
Graham JD, Vaupel JWValue of a life: what difference does it make? Risk Analysis.1981;1:89-95.
20.
Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis. Monthly exchange rates series; extracted March 17, 1999. Available from: <http://www.stls.frb.org/fred/data/exchange.html〉 .
21.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.Consumer Price Index—All Urban Consumers. Series ID: CUUROOOOSAO; extracted March 17, 1999. Available from: <http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls).
22.
Aaron HJHealth care spending: an analytical forum: I. Thinking straight about medical costs. Health Affairs. Winter 1994 :8-13.
23.
Huskamp HA, Newhouse JPHealth care spending: an analytical forum: III. Is health spending slowing down?. Health Affairs. Winter 1994 :8-13.
24.
United States Preventive Services Task Force.Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1996.
25.
Elixhauser A., Halpern M., Schmier J., Luce BRHealth care CBA and CEA from 1991 to 1996: an updated bibliography. Med Care . 1998;36:MS1-MS9, MS18-MS147.
26.
Elixhauser A., Luce BR, Taylor WR, Reblando J.Health care CBA/CEA: an update on the growth and composition of the literature. Med Care. 1993;31:JS1-JS138.
27.
Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness . Risk Analysis. 1995;15:369-90.
28.
Brown ML, Fintor L.Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1993;25:113-8.
