Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology: A Report on Principles
Authors: Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology*
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1995)

Position Papers1 July 1995Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology: A Report on PrinciplesTask Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology*Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-123-1-199507010-00011 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail PreambleAlthough economic outcomes research is an evolving field in health services research, there are correct and incorrect ways to conduct and report on economic outcomes studies. Research practices that help to minimize real or perceived bias will increase the quality and usefulness of such studies for those who sponsor, publish, and use them. Because of public concerns about the potential for bias in the design, analysis, and reporting of economic analyses of health care technology, we formed a task force to develop principles to enhance the credibility of these studies. The Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of ...References1. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidization decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 1992; 1:54-67. Google Scholar2. Detsky A. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. PharmacoEconomics. 1993; 3:354-61. Google Scholar3. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analyses in the medical literature. Are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:238-44. Google Scholar4. Luce BR, Simpson K. Methods of cost effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther. 1995; 17:263-80. Google Scholar5. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993; 9:26-36. Google Scholar6. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317:141-5. Google Scholar7. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 1993; 269:2282-6. Google Scholar8. Angell M, Relman AS. Ethical imperialism? Fraud in biomedical research: a time for congressional restraint (Editorial). N Engl J Med. 1988; 318:1462-3. Google Scholar9. Engler RL, Covell JW, Friedman PJ, Kitcher PS, Peters RM. Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317:1383-9. Google Scholar10. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990; 263:1392-5. Google Scholar11. Sharp DW. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. JAMA. 1990; 263:1390-1. Google Scholar12. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990; 263:1385-9. Google Scholar13. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990; 263:1405-8. Google Scholar14. Schafer A. The ethics of the randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1982; 307:719-24. Google Scholar15. U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public Health Service 1995. Google Scholar16. American Federation for Clinical Research National Council. American Federation for Clinical Research guidelines for avoiding conflict of interest. Clin Res. 1990; 38:239-40. Google Scholar17. Donaldson MS, Capron AM, eds. Patient Outcomes Research Teams: Managing Conflict of Interest. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Pr; 1991. Google Scholar18. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual. Part II: Research, other ethical issues. Recommended reading. Ad Hoc Committee on Medical Ethics, American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1984; 101:263-74. Google Scholar19. Institute of Medicine. The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences: Report of a Study by a Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research, Institute of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Pr; 1989. Google Scholar20. Korenman SG, Shipp AC. Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research through a Case Study Approach: A Handbook for Instructors. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges; 1994; 191-5. Google Scholar21. Association of Academic Health Centers. Conflicts of Interest in Institutional Decision-Making: Task Force on Science Policy. Washington, D.C.: Association of Academic Health Centers; 1994. Google Scholar22. AFCR guidelines for the responsible conduct of research. Clin Res. 1989; 37:510-1. Google Scholar23. Harvard guidelines for investigators in scientific research. Clin Res. 1989; 37:192-3. Google Scholar24. Donaldson MS, Capron AM. Patient Outcome Research Teams: Managing Conflicts of Interest. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Pr; 1991. Google Scholar25. Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, Bloom BS, Glick H, Kinosian B, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324:1362-5. Google Scholar26. Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics. 1992; 1:8-13. Google Scholar27. Freeman R. Health economics and strategic planning in pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Economics. 1992; (In press). Google Scholar28. The Zitter Group. The HMO Outcomes Study. San Francisco: Center for Outcomes Information; 1991. Google Scholar29. Asch D. Opportunity and motive: conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored research. LDI Health Policy and Research Quarterly. 1981; 1:3. Google Scholar30. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses (Editorial). N Engl J Med. 1994; 331:669-70. Google Scholar31. Hillman AL, Kim M. Decision-making in health care: discounting of life years revisited. PharmacoEconomics. 1994; 1995; 7:198-205. Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Disclosure: The public announcement (at the time of a presentation or publication) of the evaluation and interpretation of the results of a study. Disclosure includes discussion of sources of possible bias, potential conflict of interest, relevant constraints imposed on investigators in their conduct or reporting of the study, the nature and amount of support received by the investigators, and other pertinent information necessary for full evaluation of the report.Corresponding Author: Alan L. Hillman, MD, MBA, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Center for Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6218.Disclaimer: Some of the views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of all individual members of the Task Force or their affiliated organizations. Individual members did not officially represent the affiliated organizations. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byCost-effectiveness of single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: A systematic review of the key drivers and quality of published literatureEconomic Considerations for Complex Mixture DrugsCost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic ReviewThe underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: A systematic review of the plastic surgery literatureHidden Bias in Cost-Analysis Research: What Is the Prevalence of Under-Reporting Cost Perspective in the General Surgical Literature?The quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic reviewRecommendations for the Conduct and Reporting of Modeling and Simulation Studies in Health Technology AssessmentIssa J. Dahabreh, MD, MS, Thomas A. Trikalinos, MD, Ethan M. Balk, MD, MPH, and John B. Wong, MDAntibiotics and antiseptics for preventing infection in people receiving primary total joint prosthesesThe State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic ReviewCost-Utility Analyses in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Implications from Real-World EvidenceCost-effectiveness of the endoscopic versus microscopic approach for pituitary adenoma resectionValue-based medicine: concepts and applicationIntroduction to Preventive MedicineTraumatic Brain Injury: Methodological Approaches To Estimate Health and Economic OutcomesConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statementCost Collection and Analysis for Health Economic EvaluationConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statementConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) StatementConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statementConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) StatementCONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENTConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task ForceConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) StatementAntibiotics and antiseptics for preventing infection in people receiving primary total joint prosthesesConflict of Interest in the Assessment of Thromboprophylaxis After Total Joint ArthroplastyCost-Utility Analyses of Diagnostic Laboratory Tests: A Systematic ReviewIn Brief: Cost-effectiveness Analyses in OrthopaedicsCost-effectiveness of biologic response modifiers compared to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic reviewWhat aspects of the health technology assessment process recommended by international health technology assessment agencies received the most attention in Poland in 2008?The Socioeconomic Impact of Musculoskeletal InfectionsThe ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force ReportHas the time come for cost-effectiveness analysis in US health care?Cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination in adults: A systematic review of conclusions and assumptionsUsing Observational Data for Decision Analysis and Economic AnalysisEvidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applicationsThe unresolved issue of health economics and polytrauma: The UK perspectiveThe Economics of Clostridium difficile-Associated Disease for Providers and PayersTransparency of Economic Evaluations of Health TechnologiesCost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in the United StatesPricing matrix model: dealing with uncertaintyThe Principles of PharmacoeconomicsThe health economics of the treatment of long-bone non-unionsInfluence of economic evaluations on public health policyMethodologic Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Surgical ProceduresBurden of OsteoporosisEstudios de evaluación económica en saludCost-based evaluations of the treatment of back pain: a primer for health-care professionalsCriteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic CriteriaChemotherapy-Induced Emesis: Quality of Life and Economic Impact in the Context of Current Practice in CanadaAsthma economics: focusing on therapies that improve costly outcomesGrowth and Quality of the Cost–Utility Literature, 1976–2001Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetricsEvaluation and review of pharmacoeconomic modelsThe economics of the colony-stimulating factors in the prevention and treatment of febrile neutropeniaThe societal value of universal childhood vaccinationIntegrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: limits and opportunities for efficiency and equityISPOR Code of Ethics for Researchers Background Article—Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Code of Ethics for ResearchersECONOMIC EVALUATIONS IN ITALY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThe Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Format for Formulary Submissions: An Evolving Standard—A Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy Task Force ReportRadiotherapy Patterns of Practice: T1N0 Glottic Cancer in Ontario, CanadaSwitching Therapy in Health Economics Trials: Confronting the ConfusionApplied pharmacoeconomics: considerations to drive the choice of a prophylactic antithrombotic regimenHealing Pressure Ulcers with Collagen or Hydrocolloid: A Randomized, Controlled TrialDevelopment and Validation of a Grading System for the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness StudiesECONOMIC EVALUATION IN ORTHOPAEDICSNew Directions in Pharmacoeconomic Research: The Next StepA new conceptual framework for ICU performance appraisal and improvementEthical Considerations in Clinical Trials in AsiaDesign, Analysis and Presentation of Multinational Economic StudiesConflict of interest in industrysponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined?Antidepressant selection and economic outcome: a review of methods and studies from clinical practiceThe collection of indirect and nonmedical direct costs (COIN) formEconomic outcomes associated with tricyclic antidepressant and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatments Ior depressionThe Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976–1997Peter J. Neumann, ScD, Patricia W. Stone, PhD, MPH, RN, Richard H. Chapman, SM, Eileen A. Sandberg, SM, MBA, and Chaim M. Bell, MDDevelopment of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysisA review of economic evaluation in osteoporosisModeling economic evaluations of pharmaceuticals: manipulation or valuable tool?Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learnIs health economics useful in cancer?Panel 3: Methodological Issues in Conducting Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations—Retrospective and Claims Database StudiesPanel 6: Addressing Questions of Bias, Credibility, and Quality in Health Economic EvaluationsResources Used by PanelistsEmerging standardization in pharmacoeconomicsState-of-the-art principles and practices of medical economicsHealth and Economic Outcomes Modeling Practices: A Suggested FrameworkToward Consistency in Cost-Utility AnalysesDoes a Clinical Trial Warrant an Economic Analysis?Economic analyses of radiological procedures: A methodological evaluation of the medical literatureEvaluating and Regulating Pharmacoeconomic Information in the Private SectorPharmacoeconomics and Managed CarePaying the Piper for Pharmacoeconomic StudiesHealth Services ResearchA Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Noncardiac Transitional Care UnitsA summary of economic evaluations published in the field of rheumatology and related disciplinesEconomic evaluations of drug therapy: attitudes of primary care prescribing advisers in Great BritainEconomic Implications of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Treatment of Nonresectable Colorectal Liver MetastasesTHE PERSPECTIVE OF A PHARMACOECONOMIC STUDY: TARGETING FOR AUDIENCESCost-Effectiveness of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial InfarctionLong-term cost-effectiveness of alternative management strategies for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmiasCost-Effectiveness of Anterotemporal Lobectomy in Medically Intractable Complex Partial EpilepsyThe Socio-economic Burden of Musculoskeletal InfectionsEvaluating the value of genomic diagnostics: Implications for clinical practice and public policy 1 July 1995Volume 123, Issue 1Page: 61-70KeywordsClinical trialsConflicts of interestFood and Drug AdministrationHealth careHealth care policyHealth economicsInformation storage and retrievalPrevention, policy, and public healthQuality of lifeResearch reporting guidelines ePublished: 15 August 2000 Issue Published: 1 July 1995 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1995 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...