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

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.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7(4), 1831-1834; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7041831
Received: 16 March 2010 / Accepted: 13 April 2010 / Published: 20 April 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Economics)
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
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

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

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop