Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health (CEVR), Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Med Decis Making. 2018 Oct;38(7):767-777. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18798833.
In 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine updated the seminal work of the original panel from 2 decades earlier. The Second Panel had an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers. In this article, we present key topics for future research and policy.
During the course of its deliberations, the Second Panel discussed numerous topics for advancing methods and for improving the use of CEA in decision making. We identify and consider 7 areas for which the panel believes that future research would be particularly fruitful. In each of these areas, we highlight outstanding research needs. The list is not intended as an exhaustive inventory but rather a set of key items that surfaced repeatedly in the panel's discussions. In the online Appendix , we also list and expound briefly on 8 other important topics.
We highlight 7 key areas: CEA and perspectives (determining, valuing, and summarizing elements for the analysis), modeling (comparative modeling and model transparency), health outcomes (valuing temporary health and path states, as well as health effects on caregivers), costing (a cost catalogue, valuing household production, and productivity effects), evidence synthesis (developing theory on learning across studies and combining data from clinical trials and observational studies), estimating and using cost-effectiveness thresholds (empirically representing 2 broad concepts: opportunity costs and public willingness to pay), and reporting and communicating CEAs (written protocols and a quality scoring system).
Cost-effectiveness analysis remains a flourishing and evolving field with many opportunities for research. More work is needed on many fronts to understand how best to incorporate CEA into policy and practice.
2016 年,第二届卫生保健成本效益效益小组更新了 20 年前第一届小组的开创性工作。第二届小组有机会反思成本效益分析(CEA)的发展,并为下一代从业者和消费者提供指导。在本文中,我们提出了未来研究和政策的关键主题。
在审议过程中,第二届小组讨论了许多推进方法和改进 CEA 在决策中的应用的主题。我们确定并考虑了小组认为未来研究将特别富有成效的 7 个领域。在这些领域中的每一个,我们都强调了突出的研究需求。该清单并非详尽无遗,而是一组在小组讨论中反复出现的关键项目。在在线附录中,我们还列出并简要阐述了其他 8 个重要主题。
我们强调了 7 个关键领域:CEA 和观点(确定、评估和总结分析要素)、建模(比较建模和模型透明度)、健康结果(评估临时健康和路径状态,以及对护理人员的健康影响)、成本核算(成本目录、评估家庭生产和生产力影响)、证据综合(在跨研究学习和结合临床试验和观察性研究数据方面发展理论)、估计和使用成本效益阈值(经验代表 2 个广泛的概念:机会成本和公众支付意愿)以及报告和交流 CEA(书面方案和质量评分系统)。
成本效益分析仍然是一个蓬勃发展和不断发展的领域,有许多研究机会。在许多方面都需要做更多的工作,以了解如何将 CEA 最佳地纳入政策和实践中。