Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12195.
Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.
To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers.
In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process.
The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses.
The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
自 1996 年《成本效益在卫生保健中的应用》专家组报告发表以来,研究人员已经推进了成本效益分析方法的发展,政策制定者也在尝试应用这些方法。近年来,提高医疗保健效率的需求以及使用分析技术来了解改善健康的策略的临床和经济后果的重要性不断增加。
审查该领域的现状,并提供改进成本效益分析质量的建议。目标受众包括研究人员、政府政策制定者、公共卫生官员、医疗保健管理人员、支付方、企业、临床医生、患者和消费者。
2012 年,第二个《成本效益在卫生保健中的应用》专家组成立,由 2 名联合主席、13 名成员和 3 名领导力小组成员组成。这些成员是根据他们在该领域的经验挑选的,以提供成本效益分析设计、实施和使用方面的广泛专业知识。在接下来的 3.5 年里,专家组通过协商一致的方式制定了建议。然后邀请外部评论员和通过公开张贴程序对这些建议进行了审查。
建议采用“参考案例”的概念和一套标准方法学实践,所有成本效益分析都应遵循这些实践,以提高质量和可比性。所有成本效益分析都应报告 2 个参考案例分析:一个基于医疗保健部门的视角,另一个基于社会的视角。建议使用“影响清单”,这是一个包含(正式医疗保健部门内外)后果的结构化表格,旨在澄清 2 个参考案例分析的范围和界限。本专题通讯审查了这些建议以及其他有关干预措施后果的估计、健康结果的估值以及成本效益分析报告的建议。
第二个专家组审查了成本效益分析领域的现状,并制定了一套新的建议。主要变化包括建议从 2 个参考案例视角进行分析,并提供影响清单以澄清包括的后果。