Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information Created to Evade Reality (ICER)

Things We Should Not Look to for Answers

  • Conference Paper
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis has been advocated in the health economics methods literature and adopted in a growing number of jurisdictions as an evidence base for decision makers charged with maximising health gains from available resources.

This paper critically appraises the information generated by cost-effectiveness analysis, in particular the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). It is shown that this ratio is used as comparative information on what are non-comparable options and hence evades the reality of the decision-maker’s problem. The theoretical basis for the ICER approach is the simplification of theoretical assumptions that have no relevance to the decision maker’s context. Although alternative, well established methods can be used for addressing the decision maker’s problem, faced with the increasing evidence of the theoretical and empirical failures of the cost-effectiveness approach, some proponents of the approach now propose changing the research question to suit the approach as opposed to adopting a more appropriate method for the prevailing and continuing problem.

As long as decision makers are concerned with making the best use of available healthcare resources, cost-effectiveness analysis and the ICER should not be where we look for answers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 54–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd ed. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ubel P, Hirth R, Chernew M, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1637–1641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birch S, Gafni A. The ‘NICE’ approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag Sci 2004; 7: 35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  7. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  8. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Culyer A, et al. Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE: stepping back to sort out a confusion. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 2091–2100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Culyer A. Ought NICE to have a cost-effectiveness threshold? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: Kings Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 9–14

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rawlins M, Culyer A. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329: 224–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams A. What could be nicer than NICE? London: Office of Health Economics, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  13. Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006; 11: 46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–481

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lorinc J. How much are drugs worth? A fledgling medical science attempts an answer. University of Toronto Magazine [online]. Available from URL: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/06Spring/drugs.asp [Accessed 2006 Apr 25]

  16. Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gafni A, Birch S. Inclusion of drugs in provincial benefit programs: should ‘reasonable decisions’ lead to uncontrolled growth in expenditures? CMAJ 2003; 168: 849–851

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Devlin N. An introduction to the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in decision making: what are the issues? In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: Kings Fund and Office of Health Economics, 2002: 16–24

    Google Scholar 

  19. Birch S, Gafni A. Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein’s (mis)application of economics to real world problems. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 469–476

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Birch S, Gafni A. Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results. Health Policy 2003; 64: 207–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11: 23–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gafni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 149–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Doubilet P, Weinstein M, McNeil B. Use and misuse of the term ‘cost effective’ in medicine. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 253–256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001; 323: 743–745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Weinstein M. Decision rules for incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2006: 469–478

    Google Scholar 

  27. Birch S, Gafni A. Decision rules in economic evaluation. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2006: 492–502

    Google Scholar 

  28. Torrance G, Thomas W, Sackett D. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programmes. Health Serv Res 1972; 7: 118–133

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen M, Bush J. Maximizing health system output with political and administrative constraints using mathematical programming. Inquiry 1976; 13: 215–227

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Drummond M. Principles of economic appraisal in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980

  31. Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good? Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 33–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mason J, Drummond M, Torrance G. Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables. BMJ 1993; 306: 570–572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Birch S, Donaldson C. Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. J Health Econ 1987; 6: 61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stinnett A, Paltiel D. Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 641–653

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technology: a potential prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid it. CMAJ 1993; 148: 913–924

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fuchs V. Who shall live? Health, economics and social choice. New York: Basic Books, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  37. Neumann P, Rosen A, Weinstein M. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1516–1522

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith R. The triumph of NICE. BMJ 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/0g [Accessed 2006 May 5]

  39. Stinnett A, Mullahy J. Net health benefit: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68–S80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Hout B, Al M, Gordon G, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Briggs A. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 257–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Dowie J. Why cost effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ 2004; 13: 453–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Briggs A, O’Brien B, Blackhause G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Ann Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 377–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ 1996; 5: 513–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sendi P, Briggs A. Affordability and cost effectiveness: decision-making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 2001; 10: 675–680

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Baltussen R, Adam T, Tan-Torres Edejer T, et al. What is generalized cost-effectiveness analysis? In: Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, et al., editors. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003: 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sculpher M, Claxton K, Akehurst R. Its just evaluation for decision making: recent developments in, and challenges for, cost-effectiveness research. In: Smith P, Ginelly L, Sculpher M, editors. Health policy and economics: opportunities and challenges. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2004: 8–41

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mayor S. News extra: NICE estimates that its recommendations have cost the NHS £575m. BMJ 2002; 325: 924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ 2004; 32: 227–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The authors have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

    Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni

  2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Stephen Birch

Authors
  1. Stephen Birch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amiram Gafni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Birch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birch, S., Gafni, A. Information Created to Evade Reality (ICER). Pharmacoeconomics 24, 1121–1131 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624110-00008

Keywords

Search

Navigation