Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Health Economic Assessment: Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds and Other Decision Criteria
Previous Article in Journal
The Heart Failure Epidemic
Previous Article in Special Issue
Economic Evaluation and Transferability of Physical Activity Programmes in Primary Prevention: A Systematic Review
Article Menu

Export Article

Reply published on 20 April 2010, see Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7(4), 1835-1840.

Commentary of Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6(12), 2950-2966.

Open AccessCommentary
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7(4), 1831-1834; doi:10.3390/ijerph7041831

Comments on “Simoens, S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966”—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

NZ Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), Level 9, 40 Mercer Street, PO Box 10-254, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 16 March 2010 / Accepted: 13 April 2010 / Published: 20 April 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Economics)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [121 KB, uploaded 19 June 2014]   |  

Abstract

The Journal recently incorrectly ascribed cost-effectiveness thresholds to New Zealand, alongside other countries. New Zealand has no such thresholds when deciding the funding of pharmaceuticals. As we fund pharmaceuticals within a fixed budget, and cost-effectiveness is only one of nine decision criteria used to inform decisions, thresholds cannot be inferred or calculated. Thresholds inadequately account for opportunity cost and affordability, and are incompatible with budgets and maximising health gains. In New Zealand, pharmaceutical investments can only be considered ‘cost-effective’ when prioritised against other proposals at the time, and threshold levels must inevitably vary with available funds and the other criteria. View Full-Text
Keywords: decision making; prioritisation; health economic evaluation and technology assessment; pharmaceutical costs; budget impact analysis; opportunity cost; cost-effectiveness threshold; cost savings; cost-benefit analysis; quality-adjusted life years decision making; prioritisation; health economic evaluation and technology assessment; pharmaceutical costs; budget impact analysis; opportunity cost; cost-effectiveness threshold; cost savings; cost-benefit analysis; quality-adjusted life years
Figures

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Metcalfe, S.; Grocott, R. Comments on “Simoens, S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966”—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 1831-1834.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top