Hodgson T A
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1994 Dec;6(6):536-52. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199406060-00007.
Costs of illness are an important input in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Reviews of the literature have found that many CEAs are of low technical quality and fail to take account of costs of illness appropriately. The costs of illness and disease averted by an intervention, indirect costs, and medical care costs in added years of life are topics that present methodological issues and are not handled consistently in CEAs. Costs of illness and disease averted may be estimated by prevalence- or incidence-based methods; the correct conceptual paradigm depends on the nature of the disease. Incidence costs may be estimated by modelling the disease process, or directly from prevalence costs, the choice being determined by the extent and quality of data available. Regardless of the method, in forward-looking CEAs potential technological change must be taken into account so that incidence-based lifetime costs estimated from current treatment practices will not be biased. Whether to include indirect costs is an important issue, because indirect costs may be large and have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness ratio. In the pure CEA model, indirect costs are excluded on ethical grounds and to prevent incursion of elements of cost-benefit analysis into CEA. The modified CEA model accepts enhanced productivity as an economic benefit made possible by, but distinct from, the health effect of an intervention. Indirect costs are included when appropriate, depending on the perspective of the analysis, the measure of effectiveness, and who bears the costs. When medical care extends life, expenditures will be incurred in the added years for illness and disease unrelated to the intervention. As with indirect costs, the pure CEA considers unrelated 'downstream' costs an indirect consequence of the health benefit of the intervention and excludes them from CEAs with the societal perspective. The modified CEA treats unrelated downstream costs as an economic effect of the change in health due to the intervention and includes them in order to have a more complete accounting of the cost of the intervention.
疾病成本是成本效益分析(CEA)的一项重要投入。对文献的综述发现,许多CEA的技术质量较低,未能适当地考虑疾病成本。干预措施避免的疾病成本、间接成本以及延长生命年份中的医疗成本,这些主题存在方法学问题,在CEA中处理方式并不一致。避免的疾病成本可通过基于患病率或发病率的方法进行估算;正确的概念范式取决于疾病的性质。发病率成本可通过对疾病过程进行建模来估算,或直接从患病率成本估算,具体选择取决于可用数据的范围和质量。无论采用何种方法,在前瞻性CEA中,必须考虑潜在的技术变革,以便从当前治疗实践估算的基于发病率的终身成本不会产生偏差。是否纳入间接成本是一个重要问题,因为间接成本可能很大,并且对成本效益比有重大影响。在纯粹的CEA模型中,出于伦理原因并为防止成本效益分析的要素侵入CEA而排除间接成本。改进后的CEA模型将提高的生产力视为干预措施的健康效果所带来但又与之不同的一项经济效益。根据分析的视角、效果衡量指标以及成本承担方,在适当情况下纳入间接成本。当医疗延长了生命时,在延长的年份中会产生与干预措施无关的疾病支出。与间接成本一样,纯粹的CEA将无关的“下游”成本视为干预措施健康效益的间接后果,并从社会视角的CEA中排除这些成本。改进后的CEA将无关的下游成本视为干预措施导致的健康变化的经济影响,并将其纳入,以便更全面地核算干预措施的成本。