Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 94 (12), 925-930

Cost-effectiveness Thresholds: Pros and Cons

Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness Thresholds: Pros and Cons

Melanie Y Bertram et al. Bull World Health Organ.

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this - in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios - can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations - e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations - in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 73 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, Kahn JG, Rosen S. Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015. February 1;93(2):118–24. 10.2471/BLT.14.138206 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42435/1/924154550X.pdf [cited 2016 Aug 18].
    1. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997. February;16(1):1–31. 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00506-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, Mills AJ. Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):903–17. 10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jamison DT, Summers LH, Alleyne G, Arrow KJ, Berkley S, Binagwaho A, et al. Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation. Lancet. 2013. December 7;382(9908):1898–955. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62105-4 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback