Free

HESM Community Half-Day: Challenging the Dogmas of Health Economics

Event Information

Share this event

Date and Time

Location

Location

Roundhouse Community Centre

Roundhouse Mews

Vancouver, BC

Canada

View Map

Event description

Description

We are pleased to invite you to the 4th Health Economics & Simulation Modelling (HESM) Academic Community Half Day! This event series aims to provide opportunities for us to foster the HESM community in BC and advance our work together, including patient-oriented research (POR) initiatives. Important details are as follows:


Theme: Challenging the Dogmas of Health Economics

Date: Thursday, October 11th, 2018

Time: 12:30 pm- 4:30 pm (followed by networking event)

Location: Rooms B & C, Roundhouse Community Centre, 181 Roundhouse Mews, Vancouver


The agenda for the day includes:

12:30-1:00 pm: Registration and Lunch

1:00-1:30 pm: Update on HESM Methods Cluster projects and Phase-2 funding (David Whitehurst, Nick Bansback) and Message from ISPOR Student Chapter

1:30-2:30 pm: Featured presentation and Q & A with Mike Paulden, University of Alberta School of Public Health. Title: Why it’s time to abandon the ICER* (*Please see below for presentation abstract)

2:30-3:00: Coffee Break and Networking (Rooms B & C)

3:00-3:45 pm: Presentation and group discussion led by Neale Smith, C2E2. Title: Using qualitative meta-synthesis to supplement/interpret findings of health economics modelling

3:45-4:30 pm: Presentation and group discussion led by Sarah Costa, Adam Raymakers, Deirdre Weymann, Dean Regier, and Ian Cromwell, BC Cancer Agency. Title: Valuing non-health outcomes: should it support health care decision-making?

4:30-onward: Networking event at The New Oxford at 1144 Homer Street (5-minute walk from Roundhouse)


Participation in each session is encouraged, but optional. Lunch and afternoon refreshments will be provided. There is no charge to attend this event. Please help us by registering online in advance, noting any dietary restrictions.


Thank you for your participation!

HESM Methods Cluster


Featured presentation by Mike Paulden:

Why it’s Time to Abandon the ICER

Abstract

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is the ubiquitous summary measure in economic evaluations of health technologies. Yet reporting ICERs is unnecessary: alternative summary measures exist, based upon ‘net health benefit’ (NHB) or ‘net monetary benefit’ (NMB). Although these alternatives have several well-known advantages, the ICER remains by far the most popular summary measure used by decision makers. The popularity of the ICER may be due to its perceived simplicity, as well as the ability to calculate ICERs without a known cost-effectiveness threshold (which is required to calculate NHB or NMB). This latter property may be considered particularly attractive by decision makers who are reluctant to specify an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold, but who still wish to be seen to be conducting economic evaluations of health technologies. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the popularity of the ICER is unwarranted, and that future economic evaluations should abandon the ICER in favour of NHB or NMB. This argument is based upon a number of parts. First, we note that the perceived simplicity of the ICER is misplaced, since ICERs are generally more difficult to both calculate and interpret than NHB or NMB. Second, we show that many common ways of interpreting ICERs are flawed and result in misleading conclusions. Third, we establish that ICERs have no greater interpretability than NHB or NMB in the absence of a cost-effectiveness threshold, contrary to popular belief. Fourth, we demonstrate how NHB and NMB allow decision makers to perform various tasks, such as ranking strategies, which are not generally possible using ICERs alone. Fifth, we propose a novel means for reporting NHB and NMB on the cost-effectiveness plane that is simpler and more flexible than the ‘efficiency frontier’ approach used to report ICERs. Collectively, these arguments nullify any perceived advantages to using ICERs over NHB or NMB: ICERs are more difficult to calculate and interpret, less flexible, frequently misinterpreted, and have no advantages over NHB or NMB even if the cost-effectiveness threshold is unknown. Finally, our proposed means for reporting NHB and NMB on the cost-effectiveness plane makes interpreting the outputs of economic evaluations simpler, increasing their accessibility to decision makers, patients, and other interested stakeholders.


Share with friends

Date and Time

Location

Roundhouse Community Centre

Roundhouse Mews

Vancouver, BC

Canada

View Map

Save This Event

Event Saved