The economic evaluation of healthcare interventions requires an assessment of whether the improvement in health outcomes they offer exceeds the improvement in health that would have been possible if the additional resources required had, instead, been made available for other healthcare activities. Therefore, some assessment of these health opportunity costs is required if the best use is to be made of the resources available for healthcare. This paper provides a framework for generating country-specific estimates of cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted ‘thresholds’ that reflect health opportunity costs. We apply estimated elasticities on mortality, survival, morbidity and a generic measure of health, DALYs, that take account of measures of a country’s infrastructure and changes in donor funding to country-specific data on health expenditure, epidemiology and demographics to determine the likely DALYs averted from a 1% change in expenditure on health. The resulting range of cost per DALY averted ‘threshold’ estimates for each country that represent likely health opportunity costs tend to fall below the range previously suggested by WHO of 1–3× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. The 1–3× GDP range and many other previous and existing recommendations about which interventions are cost-effective are not based on an empirical assessment of the likely health opportunity costs, and as a consequence, the health effects of changes in health expenditure have tended to be underestimated, and there is a risk that interventions regarded as cost-effective reduce rather than improve health outcomes overall.

Cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds are being discussed more frequently and there have been many new developments in this area; however, there is a lack of understanding about what thresholds mean and their implications. This paper provides an overview of the CE threshold literature. First, the meaning of a CE threshold and the key assumptions involved (perfect divisibility, marginal increments in budget, etc.) are highlighted using a hypothetical example, and the use of historic/heuristic estimates of the threshold is noted along with their limitations. Recent endeavours to estimate the empirical value of the thresholds, both from the supply side and the demand side, are then presented. The impact on CE thresholds of future directions for the field, such as thresholds across sectors and the incorporation of multiple criteria beyond quality-adjusted life-years as a measure of 'value', are highlighted. Finally, a number of common issues and misconceptions associated with CE thresholds are addressed.

Malawi, like many low-income and middle-income countries, has used health benefits packages (HBPs) to allocate scarce resources to key healthcare interventions. With no widely accepted method for their development, HBPs often promise more than can be delivered, given available resources. An analytical framework is developed to guide the design of HBPs that can identify the potential value of including and implementing different interventions. It provides a basis for informing meaningful discussions between governments, donors and other stakeholders around the trade-offs implicit in package design. Metrics of value, founded on an understanding of the health opportunity costs of the choices faced, are used to quantify the scale of the potential net health impact (net disability adjusted life years averted) or the amount of additional healthcare resources that would be required to deliver similar net health impacts with existing interventions (the financial value to the healthcare system). The framework can be applied to answer key questions around, for example: the appropriate scale of the HBP; which interventions represent ‘best buys’ and should be prioritised; where investments in scaling up interventions and health system strengthening should be made; whether the package should be expanded; costs of the conditionalities of donor funding and how objectives beyond improving population health can be considered. This is illustrated using data from Malawi. The framework was successfully applied to inform the HBP in Malawi, as a core component of the country’s Health Sector Strategic Plan II 2017–2022.

Background Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China, having been legally mandated in 2019, to inform reimbursement decisions and price negotiations between the National Healthcare Security Administration and pharmaceutical companies around the price of new pharmaceuticals. The criteria currently used to judge cost-effectiveness and inform pricing negotiations, 3x GDP per capita, is based on the rule of thumb previously recommended by the World Health Organization rather than an estimate based on an empirical assessment of health opportunity costs.Objective The objective of this study was to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold for health technology assessment in China that accounts for health opportunity cost. MethodsThe elasticity of health outcomes with respect to health expenditure was estimated using variations across 30 provincial-level administrative divisions in 2017 controlling for a range of other factors and using an instrumental variable approach to account for endogeneity to assess robustness of results. The estimated elasticity was then used to calculate the cost per DALY averted by variations in Chinese health expenditure at the margin. ResultsThe range of estimates from this study, 27,923-52,247 (2017 RMB) (central estimate 37,446) per DALY averted or 47-88% of GDP per capita (central estimate 63%), shows that a cost per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs is below 1x GDP per capita. ConclusionOur results suggest that the current cost-effectiveness threshold used in China is too high; continuing to use it risks decisions that reduce overall population health. Key points for decision makers• Health technology assessment has been increasingly used in China and the criteria currently used to judge costeffectiveness and inform pricing negotiations does not reflect an evidence-based assessment of health opportunity costs.• This article provides the first estimate of the marginal productivity of health expenditure in China which can be used to inform the health opportunity cost of funding a new technology.• Our central estimate 37,446 (2017 RMB) or 63% of GDP per capita shows that a cost per DALY averted costeffectiveness threshold that reflects health opportunity costs would be below 1x GDP per capita, suggesting that decisions made on the basis of the currently used 3x GDP per capita threshold risk resulting in net losses in overall population health.

Public payers around the world are increasingly using cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) to assess the value-for-money of an intervention and make coverage decisions. However, there is still much confusion about the meaning and uses of the CET, how it should be calculated, and what constitutes an adequate evidence base for its formulation. One widely referenced and used threshold in the last decade has been the 1-3 GDP per capita, which is often attributed to the Commission on Macroeconomics and  WHO guidelines on Choosing Interventions that are Cost Effective (WHO-CHOICE). For many reasons, however, this threshold has been widely criticised; which has led experts across the world, including the WHO, to discourage its use. This has left a vacuum for policy-makers and technical staff at a time when countries are wanting to move towards Universal Health Coverage. This article seeks to address this gap by offering five practical options for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries that can be used instead of the 1-3 GDP rule, to combine existing evidence with fair decision-rules or develop locally relevant CETs. It builds on existing literature as well as an engagement with a group of experts and decision-makers working in low, middle and high income countries.