Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37814257›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2023

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

Rob Baltussen, Gavin Surgey, Anna Vassall, Ole F Norheim, Kalipso Chalkidou, Sameen Siddiqi, Mojtaba Nouhi, Sitaporn Youngkong, Maarten Jansen, Leon Bijlmakers and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Rob BaltussenRadboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Rob.baltussen@radboudumc.nl.
Gavin SurgeyRadboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Anna VassallLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ole F NorheimUniversity of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Kalipso ChalkidouThe Global Fund, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sameen SiddiqiAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mojtaba NouhiMinistry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran.
Sitaporn YoungkongMahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Maarten JansenRadboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Leon BijlmakersRadboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Wija OortwijnRadboud University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.

Funding

Dutch Research Council 453-13-003HSRD VA CDP 13-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCountries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a 'doing nothing' scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow.

methodsThe present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds.

resultsSectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas.

conclusionsCountries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

Indexed as

Cost-effectiveness analysisHealth benefit packagesIncremental analysisSectoral analysisUniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID37814257
PMCPMC10563323

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.