Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good?

https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90315-UGet rights and content

Abstract

In recent years it has become fashionable to make comparisons (in ‘league tables’ or rankings) between health care interventions in terms of their relative cost-effectiveness, in cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, concerns have been raised about the unthinking use of league tables and some authors have questioned the theoretical basis of their construction. In this paper a recently-reported league table is scrutinized and the important methodological features of the source studies identified. These include the choice of discount rate, the method of estimating utility values for health states, the range of costs and consequences considered and the choice of comparison programme. Several recommendations are made for improvements, both in the methodology of economic evaluation studies and in the construction and use of league tables. It is concluded that, for league tables to be useful, decision makers should be able to assess the relevance and reliability of the evidence in their own setting. Fuller reporting of methods and results by the authors of economic evaluation studies would greatly assist in the appropriate construction and use of league tables.

References (38)

  • D.M. Eddy

    Oregon's methods: did cost-effectiveness analysis fail?

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (1991)
  • M.F. Drummond

    Output measurement for resource allocations in health care

    Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy

    (1989)
  • Gerard K. and Mooney G. QALY league tables: three points for concern—goal difference matters. Health Economics Research...
  • A. Mehrez et al.

    quality-adjusted life-years, utility theory and healthy years equivalents

    Med. Decision Making

    (1989)
  • K. Gerard

    A review of cost-utility studies: assessing their policy-making relevance

  • M.F. Drummond

    Priority setting for AIDS and other health care programmes

  • G.J. Torrance et al.

    A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programmes

    Hlth Services Res.

    (1972)
  • M.C. Weinstein

    Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organisations

    Int. J. Technol. Assess. Hlth Care

    (1990)
  • A. Maynard

    Developing the health care market

    Econ. J.

    (1991)
  • Cited by (206)

    • A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017

      2018, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since the return to a non-sectioned journal in 1982, there have been many health economics papers published, with a number of outstanding contributions to the discipline from across the globe. Some of the highly-cited contributions include papers focusing on issues around: equity and inequality (Deaton and Lubotsky, 2003; Goddard and Smith, 2001; Hawe and Shiell, 2000; McIntyre et al., 2006; Morris et al., 2005; Van Doorslaer and Gerdtham, 2003; Wagstaff et al., 1991); agency relationships (Charles et al., 1997, 1999; Gafni et al., 1998); health care systems (Gilson, 2003); determinants of health (Evans and Stoddart, 1990; Filmer and Pritchett, 1999; Ng et al., 2009); cost and resource use measurement (Koopmanschap and van Ineveld, 1992; Zhang et al., 2011) and its determinants (Dunlop et al., 2000; French et al., 2000; McDonald and Kennedy, 2004); measuring health outcomes (Drummond et al., 1993; Loomes and McKenzie, 1989; Marra et al., 2005; Nord, 1992; Robinson et al., 1997; van Agt et al., 1994) and broader wellbeing in the health context (Blanchflower and Oswald, 2008; Coast et al., 2008a; Ryan, 1999); and methods for economic evaluation more generally (Gafni and Birch, 2006). Whilst shifts in published topics in Social Science & Medicine to a great extent mirror the broader concerns of health economists (with, for example, extensive publication on Quality Adjusted- Life Years (QALYs) in the late 1980s and 1990s), a number of the economics contributions to the journal have been characterised by being somewhat outside the mainstream of health economics.

    • A Tale of Two Thresholds: A Framework for Prioritization within the Cancer Drugs Fund

      2016, Value in Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      This model makes use of the league-table search approach to threshold determination and applies it to the CDF. First proposed by Gafni and Birch [27,28], and the subject of much debate within the health economics literature [9,29], the league-table approach is a well-validated method for cost-effectiveness threshold elicitation, both in theory and in practice. Although excessive informational requirements render this approach infeasible for informing NHS-level questions of resource allocation [23,24,29], this approach has been successfully applied to more modest NHS decision problems, including the estimation of “local” cost-effectiveness thresholds at the primary care trust level [24].

    • Outcomes and health economic issues in surgery

      2013, Core Topics in General and Emergency Surgery, Fifth Edition
    • Empirical evaluation of continuous auditing system use: a systematic review

      2023, International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text