You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 295 No. 23, June 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Health Policy
 •Medical Practice, Other
 •Quality of Life
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cost-effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their Commentary on drug prices and value for money, Dr Henry and colleagues1 contrast ways in which the British National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme use cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assess the value of medical technologies, including newly approved drugs. They assert that if a drug is cost-effective it should be affordable to the third-party payer, so long as the "cost-effectiveness threshold has been set appropriately." I believe that this is incorrect for 2 reasons.

First, a new drug may have a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) yet be considered unaffordable to the third-party payer because of the eligibility of large numbers of patients for the new treatment. Bupropion, orlistat, and sildenafil are examples of drugs that some third-party payers in Europe and the United States have deemed unaffordable despite having generally favorable ICERs.2 Cost-effectiveness analysis compares the additional costs and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Joshua P. Cohen, PhD
joshua.cohen@tufts.edu
Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development
Boston, Mass



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness and Resource Allocation—Reply
Anthony Harris, Suzanne R. Hill, and David A. Henry
JAMA. 2006;295(23):2723-2724.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality, Innovation, and Value for Money: NICE and the British National Health Service
Steven D. Pearson and Michael D. Rawlins
JAMA. 2005;294(20):2618-2622.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.