ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021
How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness thresholds used in the United States vs most favored nations.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Re-anchoring the Value of Innovative Therapies in NICE Decision Making When Comparators are Cost Ineffective: A Case Study of Late-Onset Pompe Disease.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- The Cost Effectiveness of Elective Surgical Procedures with Longer NHS Waiting Lists: A Targeted Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Methods and Practical Considerations for Conducting Budget Impact Analysis for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Estimating the Incremental Cost Per QALY Produced by the Spanish NHS: A Fixed-Effect Econometric Approach.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Healthcare Public Policy: Progress and Challenges.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals.Health economics review · 2024Review
- Federal and Provincial Governments Need To Be Transparent about Trade-Offs When They Buy Healthcare.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2023Article
- The Value of Health in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Theory Versus Practice.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Estimating health system opportunity costs: the role of non-linearities and inefficiency.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- How Responsive is Mortality to Locally Administered Healthcare Expenditure? Estimates for England for 2014/15.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Article
- The cost-per-QALY threshold in England: Identifying structural uncertainty in the estimates.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Empirical Estimates of the Marginal Cost of Health Produced by a Healthcare System: Methodological Considerations from Country-Level Estimates.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
34286470What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.