Difference between revisions of "Economic evaluation"
From Testiwiki
(progression class added) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Question == | == Question == | ||
| − | + | Are the incremental health effects worth the incremental costs, if a vaccine is both more effective and more expensive? | |
| − | * The | + | *The health benefit of the national infant immunisation programme is assessed by the expected reduction in the annual number of invasive pneumococcal disease in the Finnish population. The health benefit or effectiveness is measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). |
| − | * | + | *The perspective of this analysis is the health care provider. |
| + | |||
== Answer == | == Answer == | ||
| − | To find the most cost-effective | + | To find the most cost-effective vaccine according to the crieria described in the rationale. |
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
| − | + | Vaccines are ranked according to their effectiveness (V1 < V2 < V3, etc.). Vaccines that are more expensive and less effective compared with at least one other alternative (strongly dominated) are excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) are calculated for the remaining vaccines: | |
<math>ICER = \frac{(C_2-S_2) - (C_1-S_1)}{E_2-E_1},</math> | <math>ICER = \frac{(C_2-S_2) - (C_1-S_1)}{E_2-E_1},</math> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
where C is the prize of the vaccinating progranm, S is the savings in health care costs and E is the savings on QALY. | where C is the prize of the vaccinating progranm, S is the savings in health care costs and E is the savings on QALY. | ||
| − | + | Each vaccine (ranked according to their effectiveness) is compared with the next highest ranked vaccine. The least effective vaccine is compared with doing nothing. The most cost-effective vaccine is chosen. | |
== See also == | == See also == | ||
{{pneumococcal vaccine}} | {{pneumococcal vaccine}} | ||
Revision as of 09:43, 25 June 2014
This page is a method.
The page identifier is Op_en6358 |
|---|
| Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up. |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
In Opasnet many pages being worked on and are in different classes of progression. Thus the information on those pages should be regarded with consideration. The progression class of this page has been assessed:
|
This page needs a curator. Learn more about curating Opasnet pages. |
Contents
Question
Are the incremental health effects worth the incremental costs, if a vaccine is both more effective and more expensive?
- The health benefit of the national infant immunisation programme is assessed by the expected reduction in the annual number of invasive pneumococcal disease in the Finnish population. The health benefit or effectiveness is measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs).
- The perspective of this analysis is the health care provider.
Answer
To find the most cost-effective vaccine according to the crieria described in the rationale.
Rationale
Vaccines are ranked according to their effectiveness (V1 < V2 < V3, etc.). Vaccines that are more expensive and less effective compared with at least one other alternative (strongly dominated) are excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) are calculated for the remaining vaccines:
Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.): ICER = \frac{(C_2-S_2) - (C_1-S_1)}{E_2-E_1},
where C is the prize of the vaccinating progranm, S is the savings in health care costs and E is the savings on QALY.
Each vaccine (ranked according to their effectiveness) is compared with the next highest ranked vaccine. The least effective vaccine is compared with doing nothing. The most cost-effective vaccine is chosen.
See also
