Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33648523›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2021

Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?

Bernarda Zamora, Louis P Garrison, Aig Unuigbe, Adrian Towse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bernarda ZamoraOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Louis P GarrisonThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Building, H Wing, H-375, Box 357630, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA. lgarrisn@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9468-4989
Aig UnuigbeThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Building, H Wing, H-375, Box 357630, 98195, Seattle, WA, USA.
Adrian TowseOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including a new technology in a health plan benefit. The STF offered two major alternative approaches-augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)-while emphasizing the need to apply either a willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalize the inclusion decision.

methodsThe MCDA model uses the multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on the expected utility theory. In both ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs are derived in a hierarchical model with two high-level objectives which measure overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption.

resultsEven though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, we demonstrate that they can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. The consideration of how costs of medical technology, income, and severity of disease affect value trade-offs demonstrates, however, that reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA requires that health and consumption are either complements or independent attributes.

conclusionsWe conclude that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in main factors considered by enrollees and decision makers-costs of the medical technology, income, and severity of disease. Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. Moreover, their similarity would be further enhanced if the QALY is used as the key attribute or anchor in the MCDA value function: the choice between the two is a pragmatic question that is still open.

Indexed as

Augmented Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisMulti-criteria Decision AnalysisQALYValue trade-off

Identifiers

PMID33648523
PMCPMC7923485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.