Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34286470›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021

How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13.

Stephen Martin, James Lomas, Karl Claxton, Francesco Longo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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.

Stephen MartinDepartment of Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. sdm1@york.ac.uk.
James LomasCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Karl ClaxtonDepartment of Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Francesco LongoCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Funding

Health Services Research Programme (GB) EEPRU grant reference 104/0001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe endogenous nature of healthcare expenditure means that instruments are often used when estimating the relationship between expenditure and mortality. Previous English studies of this relationship have largely relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments. A recent paper proposed that exogenous components of the resource allocation formula, used to distribute the national healthcare budget to local health authorities, be used as instruments.

objectivesTo estimate the relationship between healthcare expenditure and mortality by disease area for England from 2003/4 to 2012/13 using exogenous elements from the resource allocation formula as instruments for expenditure. To use these disease-specific estimates to calculate the marginal cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for English NHS expenditure. To compare these estimates with those that relied on statistical tests to justify their instruments.

methodsThe two-stage least squares estimator is used to determine the annual relationship between mortality and healthcare expenditure by disease area across 151 local authorities. These disease-specific outcome elasticities are combined with information about survival and morbidity disease burden in different disease areas to calculate the marginal cost per QALY for English National Health Service (NHS) expenditure.

resultsThe results suggest an annual marginal cost per QALY of between £5000 and £10,000. This is similar to that reported previously by studies that used statistical tests to justify their instruments.

conclusionThese cost per QALY estimates are much lower than the threshold currently used by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (£20,000 to £30,000) to assess whether a new pharmaceutical product should be funded by the NHS. Our estimates suggest that guidance issued by NICE is likely to do more harm than good, reducing health outcomes overall for the NHS. There may be legitimate reasons why such harms are deemed appropriate, but it is only through the type of empirical analysis in this paper that the reasons for these 'harms' are likely to be articulated and explicitly justified.

Indexed as

Health ExpendituresState MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareEnglandQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.