Analyzing a Cost-Effectiveness Dataset: A Speech and Language Example for Clinicians

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis, the most common type of economic evaluation, estimates a new option's additional outcome in relation to its extra costs. This is crucial to study within the clinical setting because funding for new treatments and interventions is often linked to whether there is evidence showing they are a good use of resources. This article describes how to analyze a cost-effectiveness dataset using the framework of a net benefit regression. The process of creating estimates and characterizing uncertainty is demonstrated using a hypothetical dataset. The results are explained and illustrated using graphs commonly employed in cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude with a call to action for researchers to do more person-level cost-effectiveness analysis to produce evidence of the value of new treatments and interventions. Researchers can utilize cost-effectiveness analysis to compare new and existing treatment mechanisms.

Keywords

net benefit regression - cost-effectiveness analysis - economic evaluation - health economics - cost–benefit analysis

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. Juli 2022

• References

• 1 O'Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, Willan A. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care 1994; 32 (02) 150-163
• 2 Telehealth for Speech and Language Pathology: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2015
• 3 Jacobs M, Briley PM, Wright HH, Ellis C. Marginal assessment of the cost and benefits of aphasia treatment: evidence from community-based telerehabilitation treatment for aphasia. J Telemed Telecare 2021; doi: 10.1177/1357633×20982773
• 4 Jacobs M, Ellis C. Estimating the cost and value of functional changes in communication ability following telepractice treatment for aphasia. PLoS One 2021; 16 (09) e0257462
• 5 de Sonneville-Koedoot C, Stolk E, Rietveld T, Franken MC. Response to “Putting the cart before the horse: a cost effectiveness analysis of treatments for stuttering in young children requires evidence that the treatments analyzed were effective”. J Commun Disord 2017; 65: 68-69
• 6 Yong JH, Beca J, Hoch JS. The evaluation and use of economic evidence to inform cancer drug reimbursement decisions in Canada. PharmacoEconomics 2013; 31 (03) 229-236
• 7 Hoch JS, Sabharwal M. Informing Canada's cancer drug funding decisions with scientific evidence and patient perspectives: the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Curr Oncol 2013; 20 (02) 121-124
• 8 Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis?. Health Econ 2001; 10 (02) 179-184
• 9 Liu Z, Huang J, Xu Y, Wu J, Tao J, Chen L. Cost-effectiveness of speech and language therapy plus scalp acupuncture versus speech and language therapy alone for community-based patients with Broca's aphasia after stroke: a post hoc analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11 (09) e046609
• 10 Ellis C, Lindrooth RC, Horner J. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for aphasia: an approach using experimental data. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (02) 186-195
• 11 Palmer R, Cooper C, Enderby P. et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of computer treatment for aphasia post stroke (Big CACTUS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16: 18
• 12 Haslam A, Lythgoe MP, Greenstreet Akman E, Prasad V. Characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies for oncology drugs approved in the United States From 2015-2020. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (11) e2135123
• 13 Boysen AE, Wertz RT. Clinician costs in aphasia treatment: How much is a word worth?. Clin Aphasiol 1996; 24: 207-213
• 14 Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008; 8 (02) 165-178
• 15 Swinburn K, Porter G, Howard D. Comprehensive Aphasia Test. London: Psychology Press; 2004
• 16 Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2002; 11 (05) 415-430
• 17 Hoch JS, Rockx MA, Krahn AD. Using the net benefit regression framework to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of external loop recorders versus Holter monitoring for ambulatory monitoring of “community acquired” syncope. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 68
• 18 Tambour M, Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A note on confidence intervals in cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (03) 467-471
• 19 Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18 (2, Suppl): S68-S80
• 20 Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Löthgren M, Tambour M. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. PharmacoEconomics 2003; 21 (01) 39-48
• 21 Chapel JM, Wang G. Understanding cost data collection tools to improve economic evaluations of health interventions. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2019; 4 (04) 214-222
• 22 Trenaman L, Pearson SD, Hoch JS. How are incremental cost-effectiveness, contextual considerations, and other benefits viewed in health technology assessment recommendations in the United States?. Value Health 2020; 23 (05) 576-584
• 23 Whitehurst DGT, Latimer NR, Kagan A. et al. Developing accessible, pictorial versions of health-related quality-of-life instruments suitable for economic evaluation: a report of preliminary studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom. Pharmacoecon Open 2018; 2 (03) 225-231