By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach : An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. / Phelps, C.; Lakdawalla, D.; Basu, A.; Drummond, M.F.; Towse, A.; Danzon, P.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 21, No. 2, 23.02.2018, p. 146 - 154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Phelps, C, Lakdawalla, D, Basu, A, Drummond, MF, Towse, A & Danzon, P 2018, 'Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]', Value in Health, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 146 - 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010

APA

Phelps, C., Lakdawalla, D., Basu, A., Drummond, M. F., Towse, A., & Danzon, P. (2018). Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. Value in Health, 21(2), 146 - 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010

Vancouver

Phelps C, Lakdawalla D, Basu A, Drummond MF, Towse A, Danzon P. Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. Value in Health. 2018 Feb 23;21(2):146 - 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010

Author

Phelps, C. ; Lakdawalla, D. ; Basu, A. ; Drummond, M.F. ; Towse, A. ; Danzon, P. / Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach : An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]. In: Value in Health. 2018 ; Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 146 - 154.

Bibtex - Download

@article{617f42e76b4444c19436c0a9a3ce28b6,
title = "Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [5]",
abstract = "The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted lifeyears. For example, we describe a recently developed extended costeffectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features—measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach—augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing “hedonic” value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area.",
keywords = "aggregation, cost-effectiveness, equity, multi-dimensioned benefits",
author = "C. Phelps and D. Lakdawalla and A. Basu and M.F. Drummond and A. Towse and P. Danzon",
note = "{\circledC} 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "146 -- 154",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Approaches to Aggregation and Decision Making - A Health Economics Approach

T2 - Value in Health

AU - Phelps, C.

AU - Lakdawalla, D.

AU - Basu, A.

AU - Drummond, M.F.

AU - Towse, A.

AU - Danzon, P.

N1 - © 2018, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.

PY - 2018/2/23

Y1 - 2018/2/23

N2 - The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted lifeyears. For example, we describe a recently developed extended costeffectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features—measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach—augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing “hedonic” value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area.

AB - The fifth section of our Special Task Force report identifies and discusses two aggregation issues: 1) aggregation of cost and benefit information across individuals to a population level for benefit plan decision making and 2) combining multiple elements of value into a single value metric for individuals. First, we argue that additional elements could be included in measures of value, but such elements have not generally been included in measures of quality-adjusted lifeyears. For example, we describe a recently developed extended costeffectiveness analysis (ECEA) that provides a good example of how to use a broader concept of utility. ECEA adds two features—measures of financial risk protection and income distributional consequences. We then discuss a further option for expanding this approach—augmented CEA, which can introduce many value measures. Neither of these approaches, however, provide a comprehensive measure of value. To resolve this issue, we review a technique called multicriteria decision analysis that can provide a comprehensive measure of value. We then discuss budget-setting and prioritization using multicriteria decision analysis, issues not yet fully resolved. Next, we discuss deliberative processes, which represent another important approach for population- or plan-level decisions used by many health technology assessment bodies. These use quantitative information on CEA and other elements, but the group decisions are reached by a deliberative voting process. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of stated preference methods for developing “hedonic” value frameworks, and conclude with some recommendations in this area.

KW - aggregation

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - equity

KW - multi-dimensioned benefits

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.010

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 146

EP - 154

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 2

ER -