An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations

Abstract

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Valuing infertility treatment: Why QALYs are inadequate, and an alternative approach to cost-effectiveness thresholds

“…Other concerns about the standardized use of QALYs include that they disadvantage those who are severely ill, disabled and are at the end-of-life, as well as not incorporating equity and distributional concerns in their standard form. A number of authors have proposed modifications to the current QALY-based HTA framework or proposed a wider use of cost-consequence studies (89)(90)(91)(92). Such limitations have also prompted reviews of current HTA frameworks including in Australia (93) and the UK (94,95).…”

Administrative Data Use in National Registry Efforts: Blessing or Curse?

“…Economic evaluations are often used to assess the value of care 45 . There are several types of economic evaluations, including cost analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost-minimization analysis, and CEA 46 . The most often-used economic evaluation is CEA, especially cost-utility analysis, which is a type of CEA.…”

“…By using broad units of measurement, CEA allows for direct comparison across different conditions or diseases based on their impact on both quality and quantity of life. This often makes it more straightforward for policymakers 46 . The main outcome of CEA is expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the ratio of additional resources used over additional health benefits, between 2 strategies.…”

Correctional treatment as an economically sound approach to reducing the high costs of recidivism: A review of the research

“…Technical efficiency refers to the degree to which a given intervention produces the desired outcome at the lowest possible cost. Allocative efficiency refers to the extent to which a given intervention maximises benefits-here, the main concern is achieving the optimal allocation of resources to interventions that produce the highest net economic benefit (Turner et al, 2021). In cost-benefit analyses, intervention costs and outcomes are both monetised, allowing the calculation of net benefits-and of benefit-to-cost ratios-as a measure of (allocative) efficiency.…”