Pros and cons of cost-effectiveness thresholds
Research snapshot1
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Many countries use cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-effectiveness ratios to guide their decisions on resource allocation and to compare the efficiencies of alternative health interventions. In 2001, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country’s per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Commission suggested that it is reasonable to spend the estimated value of a year of healthy life, per capita, on an intervention that led to a mean of at least one additional year of healthy life per capita. In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, this and other more recent thresholds based on GDP have been used as decision rules.
However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity. In addition, economic models that are often used to generate cost-effectiveness ratios can be inaccurate. This can lead to wrong decisions being made on how to spend healthcare resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations, such as budget impact and feasibility, in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in (for example, the involvement of civil society organisations and patient groups) and is transparent, consistent and fair.
Footnotes
1Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere KD, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny MP and Hill SR. (2016) Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:925–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.164418926
More like this
FEX: CMAM Surge: understanding costs and potential contribution to CMAM’s cost-effectiveness
View this article as a pdf By Kate Golden and Simone van Dijk Kate Golden is Senior Nutrition Adviser at Concern Worldwide. Her career started in Ethiopia in 2003 in one of...
FEX: Costs, cost-effectiveness, and financial sustainability of CMAM in Northern Nigeria
By Sasha Frankel, Mark Roland and Marty Makinen Sasha Frankel worked for the Results for Development Institute as a Senior Programme Associate focusing on health financing and...
FEX: Promoting community based management of severe acute malnutrition as a child survival intervention
By Andre Briend Andre is Adjunct Professor at the Department for International Health, University of Tampere School of Medicine, FIN-33014, Tampere, Finland and Department of...
FEX: Technical brief on the cost of malnutrition
Summary of research1 Location: Global What we know: Poor nutrition carries a significant economic burden at individual, national and global levels and prevents poverty...
FEX: Impact evaluation of cash, food vouchers, and food transfers among Colombian refugees and poor Ecuadorians in urban Ecuador
Summary of evaluation1 Evaluation headlines: Levels of food insecurity and associated anaemia are high amongst Columbian refugees and poor Ecuadorians in the northern...
FEX: Community Managed Targeting – Tanzania
Post-script by Jeremy Shoham, ENN DFID commissioned an evaluation of the community-managed targeting programme in Singida and Dodoma regions of Central Tanzania in May 1999....
Resource: Cost Effectiveness of Community-Based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) in Malawi
Reference: Health and Policy Planning, 2011: 1-11. Published March 4th 2011. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of community-based management of acute malnutrition...
FEX: Cash, food or vouchers? Evidence from a randomised experiment in northern Ecuador
Summary of research1 Location: Northern Ecuador What we know: There is ongoing debate on the most effective form of food assistance: cash, food vouchers or food...
FEX: The effects of HIV on Botswana’s development progress
By Siddharth Krishnaswamy Siddharth was a part of the Vulnerability & Mapping Unit (VAM) of the WFP. Prior to this he worked for an international NGO in Northern Uganda. He...
FEX: Casual factors of wasting in Africa: What can be gleaned from available data?
View this article as a pdf This article reviews available national data from Africa to examine to what extent wasting could be explained by the underlying causes of...
FEX: Cost effectiveness of community-based and inpatient therapeutic feeding programmes to treat SAM in Ethiopia
Health Extension Worker testing the appetite of a malnourished child, Menkere health post, Tigray region By Asayehegn Tekeste, Kebede Deribe, Dr Mekitie Wondafrash and Dr...
FEX: Comparing cash and food transfers: findings from a pilot project in Sri Lanka
By Lili Mohiddin (Oxfam GB), Manohar Sharma (IFPRI), Anette Haller (WFP Rome) Lili Mohiddin, Manohar Sharma & Anette Haller Lili Mohiddin has been an Emergency Food Security...
FEX: Research Study of the cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions in Pakistan
Research snapshot1 Cash-based interventions (CBIs) are increasingly being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of...
FEX: Implementing the IMAM Surge approach - experiences from Kenya
View this article as a pdf By Weldon Ngetich, Grace Gichohi, Francis Wambua, Tewoldeberhan Daniel, Yacob Yishak and Patrick Codjia Weldon Ngetich is a Nutrition Specialist...
FEX: Cash supported income generation activities in Southern Sudan
By Emily Sloane and Silke Pietzsch Emily Sloane was a Food Security and Livelihoods Trainee at ACF-USA supporting the evaluation of the project's income generating activities...
Resource: The cost of preventing undernutrition: cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of three cash-based interventions on nutrition outcomes in Dadu, Pakistan
Abstract Cash-based interventions (CBIs) increasingly are being used to deliver humanitarian assistance and there is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of cash...
FEX: Cost effectiveness of CMAM in Malawi
Government of Malawi guidelines Summary of published research1 A recent study assessed the cost-effectiveness of community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) to...
FEX: Risk of nutritional deficiencies increases during female adolescence – a comparison of the cost of a nutritious diet across sex and age
View this article as a pdf By Zuzanna Turowska, Janosch Klemm, Nora Hobbs and Saskia de Pee Zuzanna Turowska is a Food Systems Analyst in the Nutrition Division of the World...
FEX: The cost of implementing the C-MAMI tool to treat nutritionally vulnerable infants in Bangladesh
By Natasha Lelijveld, Mostofa Sarwar, Golam Mothabbir, Sarah Butler and Nicki Connell View this article as a pdf Natasha Lelijveld is a Research Fellow at the Centre for...
FEX: Community case management of severe acute malnutrition in southern Bangladesh
Summary of study1 Bangladesh has the fourth-highest number of children (approximately 600,000 at any one time) suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in the world....
Reference this page
Pros and cons of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Field Exchange 55, July 2017. p20. www.ennonline.net/fex/55/prosandcons
(ENN_5692)