Systematic overview of cost–effectiveness thresholds in ten countries across four continents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To provide an overview of thresholds for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) representing willingness-to-pay (WTP) across multiple countries and insights into exemptions pertaining to the ICER (e.g., cancer). To compare ICER thresholds to individual country's estimated ability-to-pay. MATERIALS & METHODS: We included AHRQ/USA, BIQG-GOEG/Austria, CADTH/Canada, DAHTA@DIMDI/Germany, DECIT-CGATS/Brazil, HAS/France, HITAP/Thailand, IQWiG/Germany, LBI-HTA/Austria, MSAC/Australia, NICE/England/Wales and SBU/Sweden. ICER thresholds were derived from systematic literature/website search/expert surveys. WTP was compared with ATP using Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Two general and explicitly acknowledged thresholds (England/Wales, Thailand), implicit thresholds in six countries and different ICER thresholds/decision-making rules in oncology were identified. Correlation between WTP and ability-to-pay was moderate. DISCUSSION: Our overview supports country-specific discussions on WTP and on how to define value(s) within societies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".