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

doi:10.3390/ijerph7041831

This article is

freely available
re-usable

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

Commentary

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

Scott Metcalfe * and Rachel Grocott *

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)

Download PDF Full-Text [121 KB, uploaded 20 April 2010 08:38 CET]

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.

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

Article Statistics

Click here to load and display the download statistics.

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.

AMA 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. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010; 7(4):1831-1834.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Metcalfe, Scott; Grocott, Rachel. 2010. "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 7, no. 4: 1831-1834.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI Publishing, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert