Trends in Author-Reported Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in the United States from 1995 to 2018: Implications for Discount Rates
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) using equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes are consistent with using a constant cost-effectiveness threshold over time. We sought to analyze trends in author-reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) thresholds from CEAs published for the US setting over 24 y to retrospectively assess whether the recommended equal discount rates for costs and health were consistent with trends in the CEA literature. METHODS: We used the Tufts CEA Registry to assess whether author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds changed in CEAs published for the US setting between 1995 and 2018 and back-calculated the implied discount rate for health based on these trends for inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds and an annual discount rate for costs of 3%. RESULTS: We found 1995 CEAs published for the US setting and found that average nominal and inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds increased over that time period. The discount rate for health would need to equal 2.43% to 2.48% (depending on the subset of CEAs analyzed) to be consistent with the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds. We also found that restricting our analysis to currency years between 1995 and 2014 would result in a back-calculated discount rate for health of 2.99% to 3.28%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that CEA researchers have implicitly assumed that inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds in the United States have been increasing over time (1995-2018), which is inconsistent with the recommended and prevailing choice of equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes. Our results are sensitive to the cutoff year used in the analysis. HIGHLIGHTS: We show visually and through equations that the recommended and prevailing practice of using equal discount rates for cost and health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) logically implies a constant inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness threshold over time.Using data from the Tufts CEA Registry, we found that author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds used in CEAs published for the US setting with currency years between 1995 and 2018 increased over time (both with and without adjustment for inflation).Assuming an annual discount rate for costs equal to 3%, the discount rate for health would need to equal approximately 2.5% to preserve consistency across decisions taken at different dates given the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds.This finding depends on the cutoff year used in the analysis (data from currency years 1995-2014 would support use of equal discount rates, whereas data after 2014 would suggest a sharper trend toward increasing cost-effectiveness thresholds).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,321 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».