The Experts below are selected from a list of 285 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Peter J. Neumann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Correction to: Perspective and Costing in Cost‑Effectiveness Analysis, 1974-2018.
PharmacoEconomics, 2020Co-Authors: David D. Kim, Madison C. Silver, Natalia R. Kunst, Joshua T. Cohen, Daniel A. Ollendorf, Peter J. NeumannAbstract:The article Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
-
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2.0
The New England journal of medicine, 2017Co-Authors: Peter J. Neumann, Gillian D SandersAbstract:As prominent groups in U.S. health care ramp up use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to measure and communicate the value of new drugs and other interventions, an expert panel has released updated guidelines for such Analysis.
-
Medicare's use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for prevention (but not for treatment).
Health policy (Amsterdam Netherlands), 2014Co-Authors: James D. Chambers, Michael J. Cangelosi, Peter J. NeumannAbstract:Abstract Context Medicare currently pays for 23 preventive services in its benefits package, the majority of which were added since 2005. In the past decade, the program has transformed from one essentially administering treatment claims, to one increasingly focused on health promotion and maintenance. What is largely unappreciated is the role Cost-Effectiveness Analysis has played in the coverage of preventive services. Methods We review the role of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Medicare coverage of preventive services and contrast it to the lack of such consideration in the coverage of treatments. Findings While not considered for coverage of treatment, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis played a role in the coverage of nine preventive services, and was evaluated in a number of instances when the service was not added. Pneumococcal vaccine, the first preventive service added to the benefit (1981), followed a Congressionally requested Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, which showed it to be cost-saving. More recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reviewed Cost-Effectiveness evidence when covering preventive services such as HIV screening (2010) and screening and behavioral counseling for alcohol misuse (2011) (studies reported Cost-Effectiveness ratios of $55,440 per QALY, and $1755 per QALY, respectively). Conclusions Cost-Effectiveness Analysis has played a longstanding role in informing the addition of preventive services to Medicare. It offers Medicare officials information they can use to help ensure health gains are achieved at reasonable cost. However, limiting Cost-Effectiveness evidence to prevention and not treatment is inconsistent and potentially inefficient.
-
Medicare and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
The New England journal of medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Peter J. Neumann, Allison B. Rosen, Milton C. WeinsteinAbstract:In this article, the authors discuss the obstacles to the use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Medicare decisions about coverage. They argue that policymakers could avert the impending financial crisis facing Medicare by incorporating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis into a comprehensive strategy to allocate health care resources more rationally.
Eric A. Posner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transfer Regulations and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003Co-Authors: Eric A. PosnerAbstract:Recent scholarship on regulatory oversight has focused on cost-benefit Analysis of prescriptive regulations - regulations that restrict behavior such as pollution - and their use to cure market failures, and has overlooked the vast number of transfer regulations. Transfer regulations are regulations that channel funds to beneficiaries. These regulations are authorized by statutes that establish entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, pay one-time distributions to victims of misfortunes such as natural disasters and the 9/11 terrorist attack, and fund pork barrel spending. Cost-benefit Analysis cannot be used to evaluate transfer regulations because all transfer regulations fail cost-benefit Analysis, but Cost-Effectiveness Analysis can be used to evaluate transfer regulation. Although executive orders appear to require agencies to use Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to evaluate transfer regulations that have a large economic impact, the agencies' record is dismal. Most agencies fail to perform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and other agencies perform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis incorrectly. More vigorous OMB and, possibly, judicial review could improve the quality of distributive regulations.
-
Transfer Regulations and Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Duke law journal, 2003Co-Authors: Eric A. PosnerAbstract:Recent scholarship on regulatory oversight has focused on cost-benefit Analysis of prescriptive regulations--regulations that restrict behavior such as pollution--and their use to cure market failures, and has overlooked the vast number of transfer regulations. Transfer regulations are regulations that channel funds to beneficiaries. These regulations are authorized by statutes that establish entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, pay one-time distributions to victims of misfortunes such as natural disasters and the 9/11 terrorist attack, and fund pork barrel spending. Cost-benefit Analysis cannot be used to evaluate transfer regulations because all transfer regulations fail cost-benefit Analysis; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, however, can be used to evaluate transfer regulations. Although executive orders appear to require agencies to use Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to evaluate transfer regulations that have a large economic impact, the agencies' record is dismal. Most agencies fail to perform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and other agencies perform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis incorrectly. More vigorous Office of Management and Budget and, possibly, judicial review could improve the quality of distributive regulations.
Alastair Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Power and Sample Size Calculations for Stochastic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Medical Decision Making, 1998Co-Authors: Andrew Briggs, Alastair GrayAbstract:As the data for economic analyses are increasingly collected prospectively alongside clinical trials, many commentators have highlighted that the sample sizes in such trials should be based on the requirements for the economic Analysis as well as those for the clinical evaluation. However, issues associated with sample size calculations for economic Analysis have yet to receive the rigorous attention given to sample size calculation for clinical evaluation. In particular, no sample size formula for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis is available for analysts hoping either to calculate the required sample size at the design stage of a study or to calculate the power a given size of clinical trial will generate for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Building on the recent literature for calculating confidence intervals for Cost-Effectiveness ratios, the authors explore possible techniques for deriving a sample size formula for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis based on simple combination of the confidence limits on costs and effects.
Henry A. Glick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sample size and power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (part 1).
PharmacoEconomics, 2011Co-Authors: Henry A. GlickAbstract:Basic sample size and power formulae for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis have been established in the literature. These formulae are reviewed and the similarities and differences between sample size and power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and for the Analysis of other continuous variables such as changes in blood pressure or weight are described. The types of sample size and power tables that are commonly calculated for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis are also described and the impact of varying the assumed parameter values on the resulting sample size and power estimates is discussed. Finally, the way in which the data for these calculations may be derived are discussed.
Milton C. Weinstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Medicare and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
The New England journal of medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Peter J. Neumann, Allison B. Rosen, Milton C. WeinsteinAbstract:In this article, the authors discuss the obstacles to the use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Medicare decisions about coverage. They argue that policymakers could avert the impending financial crisis facing Medicare by incorporating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis into a comprehensive strategy to allocate health care resources more rationally.
-
On the decision rules of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Journal of health economics, 1993Co-Authors: Magnus Johannesson, Milton C. WeinsteinAbstract:It has become increasingly popular to carry out Cost-Effectiveness analyses in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis is based on the maximisation of the health effects for a given amount of resources. However, many published studies fail to report the results of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in a way that is consistent with this underlying aim. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the decision rules of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in an easily accessible way for practitioners in the field. A hypothetical example is used to demonstrate the decision rules of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and we also show how to estimate the appropriate incremental Cost-Effectiveness ratios and how to exclude dominated alternatives. It is then shown how fixed budgets or predetermined prices per effectiveness unit can be used as decision rules to maximise health effects and to determine which programmes to implement on the basis of incremental Cost-Effectiveness ratios. We hope that the article will contribute towards an increased understanding and application of the appropriate decision rules of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, so that the results of Cost-Effectiveness analyses can be interpreted meaningfully by decision makers.
