Despite the remarkable advances that have been made in the treatment of chronic disease, little is known about whether new drugs deliver adequate value for money. Recognizing that it is not always possible to obtain such information from a clinical trial, economic analysts sometimes turn to models to estimate comparative resource consumption and economic performance. Model-based evaluations appear with increased frequency in both the scholarly literature and pharmaceutical industry promotional materials. Yet, skepticism about the rigor and objectivity of such studies often limits their influence among other important audiences. This paper offers a practitioner's view of the promise of model-driven analysis, inventories the standard objections voiced by critics, and proposes a role for modeling in the drug development and evaluation process. The argument is framed within the context of the inevitability of decision making, wherein evaluation models serve not to supplant decision makers but rather to leverage existing sources of information.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.1994 Annual Report, Health, United States. Princeton, NJ: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 1994.
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.Communicating About Chronic Diseases. Chronic Disease Notes and Reports. 1998;11:7–8.
3.
Faulkner and Gray's Medicine and Health Perspectives. December 9, 1996;50:47.
4.
KumarVGoldsteinMZDoraiswamyPMAdvances in pharmacotherapy for decline of memory and cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Psychiatric Services. 1996;47:249–253.
5.
KerstjensHAMBrandPLPHughes MD, the Dutch CNSLD Study Group. A comparison of bronchodilator therapy with and without inhaled corticosteroid in obstructive airway disease. N Engl J Med.1992;327:1413–1419.
6.
HaahtelaTJarvinenMKavaTComparison of a Beta2-Agonist, terbutaline, with an inhaled corticosteroid budesonide, in newly detected asthma. N Engl J Med.1991;325:388–392.
7.
Kaplan-MachlisBKlostermeyerBSThe cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors: safety and effectiveness. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33:979–988.
8.
National Asthma Education Program. Expert Panel Report. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Publication # 91-3042, 1991.
9.
National ADAP Monitoring Project. Washington, DC: The National Alliance of State Territorial AIDS Directors and the AIDS Treatment Data Network; March 2000.
10.
1999 United States Public Health Service/Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic infections in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus.MMWR. 1999;48:1–59, 61–66.
11.
KaplanEHBrandeauMLAIDS policy modeling by example. AIDS. 1994;8(S1):S333–S340.
12.
BuxtonMJDrummondMFvan HoutBAPrinceRLSheldonTASzucsTVrayM.Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217–227.
13.
JagerJRuitenbergE, eds. AIDS Impact Assessment: Modeling and Scenario Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992.
14.
SloanFA, ed. Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits, and the Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Technologies. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
15.
HaddixACTeutschSMShafferPADunetDOPrevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
16.
BeckJRHow to evaluate drugs: cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 1990;264:83–84.
17.
DrummondMStoddartGTorranceG.Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
18.
WeinsteinMCStasonWBCost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 1982;66(Suppl III):56–66.
19.
MarkDBHlatkyMACaliffRMNaylorCDLeeKLArmstrongPWCost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med.1995 May 25; 332(21):1418–1424.
20.
HuninkMGGoldmanLTostesonANMittlemanMAGoldmanPAWilliamsLWThe recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease. The effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. JAMA. 1997;277:535–542.
21.
EdelsonJTWeinsteinMCTostesonANAWilliamsLLeeTHGoldmanL.Long-term cost-effectiveness of various initial monotherapies for mild to moderate hypertension. JAMA. 1990;263:407–413.
22.
KinosianBPEisenbergJMCutting into cholesterol: cost-effective alternatives for treating hypercholesterolemia. JAMA. 1988;259:2249–2254.
23.
TrocheCJPaltielADMakuchR.Evaluation of therapeutic strategies: A new method of balancing risk and benefit. Value in Health. 2000;3:12–22.
24.
NeumannPJHermannMDKuntzKMArakiSMDuffSBLeonSMJBerenbaumPAGoldmanPAWilliamsLWWeinsteinMCCost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1999;52:1138–1145.
25.
FreedbergKAPaltielADCost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for opportunistic infections in AIDS: An overview and methodologic discussion. PharmacoEconomics. 1998;14:165–174.
26.
FreedbergKAScharfsteinJASeageGRLosinaEWeinsteinMCCravenDEPaltielADThe costeffectiveness of preventing AIDS-related opportunistic infections. JAMA. 1998;279:130–136.
27.
WelchHGLarsonEBCost-effectiveness of bone marrow transplantation in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med.1989;321:807–812.
28.
WeinsteinMCColeyCMRichterJMMedical management of gallstones: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med.1990;5:277–284.
29.
WeeksJCTierneyMRWeinsteinMCCost-effectiveness of prophylactic intravenous immune globulin in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med.1991;325:81–86.
30.
EddyDMScreening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med.1989;111:389–399.
31.
EddyDMHasselbladVMcGivneyWHendeeW.The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. JAMA. 1988;259:1512.
32.
EddyDMScreening for colorectal cancer. Ann Int Med.1990;113:373–384.
33.
ChertowGMPaltielADOwenWFLazarusJMCost-effectiveness of cancer screening in end-stage renal disease. Arch Int Med.1996;156:1345–1350.
34.
McCarthyBWongJMunozASonnenbergF.Who should be screened for HIV infection?Arch Int Med.1993;153:1107–1116.
35.
KaplanEHBrandeauML, eds. Modeling the AIDS Epidemic. New York: Raven Press; 1994.
36.
HoltgraveDR, ed. Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. New York: Plenum Press; 1998.
37.
SiskJEMoskowitzAJWhangWLinJDFedsonDSMcBeanAMPlouffeJFCetronMSButlerJCCost-effectiveness of vaccination against pneumococcal bacteremia among elderly people. JAMA. 1997;278:1333–1339.
38.
PliskinJSTellEJA dialysis need forecasting model: a retrospective evaluation. Med Decis Making. 1983;3:489–500.
39.
EddyDMOregon's methods: did cost-effectiveness analysis fail?JAMA. 1991;266:2135–2141.
40.
The White House Domestic Policy Council.The President's Health Security Plan. New York, NY: Times Books; 1993:45–46.
41.
BloomBSIssues in mandatory economic assessment of pharmaceuticals. Health Affairs. Winter 1992:197–201.
42.
SheingoldSHThe value of cost-effectiveness analyses for reimbursement decisions: Perspectives from Medicare. Am Heart J.1999;137:S81–S86.
43.
DrummondMFBasing prescription drug payment on economic analysis: the case of Australia. Health Affairs. Winter 1992;191–196.
44.
FreundDAEvansDHenryDDittusR.Implications of the Australian guidelines for the United States. Health Affairs. Winter 1992;202–206.
45.
LangleyPCThe November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 1996;9:341–352.
46.
Department of Human Services and Health.Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
47.
HenryD.Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: The development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 1992;1:54–67.
48.
GarattiniAGrilliRScopellittiDMantovaniL.A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomic. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:1–6.
49.
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment.Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd edition. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 1997.
50.
DetskyASGuidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: A draft document for Ontario and Canada. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;3:354–361.
51.
PaltielADSteinScharf JAWeinsteinMCSeageGRLosinaEGoldieSJCravenDEFreedbergKAA Monte Carlo simulation of advanced HIV disease: application to CMV prevention. Med Decision Making. 1998;18:S93–S105.
52.
JonssonBBebbingtonP.What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psychiatry. 1994;164:665–673.
53.
FreemantieNHouseAMasonJEconomics of treatment of depression (letter). Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166:397–399.
54.
HotopfMLewisGNormandC.Are SSRIs a costeffective alternative to tricyclics?Br J Psychiatry. 1996;168:404–409.
55.
WoodsSWRizzoJACost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment reassessed. Br J Psychiatry. 1997;170:257–263.
56.
PaukerSGKassirerJPThe threshold approach to clinical decision making. New Engl J Med.1980;302:1109–1117.
57.
DetskyASNaglieGKrahnMDPrimer on decision analysis: Part 4—Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decision Making. 1997;17:142–151.
58.
PaltielADScharfsteinJAWeinsteinMCSeageGRLosinaEGoldieSJCravenDEFreedbergKAA Monte Carlo simulation of advanced HIV disease: application to CMV prevention. Med Decision Making. 1998;18:S93–S105.
59.
DiamondGAForresterJSAnalysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. New Engl J Med.1979;300:1350–1358.
60.
HillnerBESmithTJDeschCEEfficacy and costeffectiveness of autologous bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. Estimates using decision analysis while awaiting clinical trial results. JAMA. 1992;267:2055–2061.
61.
SchulmanKALynnLAGlickHAEisenbergJMCost effectiveness of low-dose zidovudine therapy for asymptomatic patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Ann Int Med.1991;114:798–802.
62.
WeinsteinMCCoxsonPGWilliamsLWForecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: The Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1417–1426.
63.
HayJJacksonJ.Proceedings of the Advisory Panel Meeting and Conference on Pharmacoeconomic Issues: Panel 2: Methodological Issues in Conducting Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations—Modeling Studies. Value in Health. 1999;2:78–81.
64.
UdvarhelyiISColditzGARaiACost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature. Ann Int Med.1992;116(3):238–244.
65.
NeumannPJWrightJZinnerDEAre methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving?Med Decision Making. 1997;17:402–408.
66.
LeeJLSanchezLAInterpretation of ‘cost-effective’ and soundness of economic evaluations in the pharmacy literature. Am J Hospital Pharmacy. 1991;48:2622–2627.
67.
GaniatsTGWongAFEvaluation of cost-effectiveness research: a survey of recent publications. Family Med.1991;23:457–462.
68.
DraugalisJRAssessing pharmacoeconomic studies. In BootmanJL, ed. Principles of Pharmacoeconomics. Cincinnati: Harvey Whitney Books; In press.
69.
BriggsASculpherM.Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Economics. 1995;4:355–371.
70.
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.Identifying health technologies that work: searching for evidence. OTA-H-608. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; September, 1994.
71.
ElixhauserALuceBRTaylorRReblandoJ.Health care CBA/CEA: an update on the growth and composition of the literature. Med Care. 1989;27:S190–S204.
72.
KassirerJPMoskowitzAJLauJPaukerSGDecision analysis: a progress report. Ann Intern Med.1987;106:275–291.
73.
SheldonTAProblems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Economics. 1996;5:1–11.
74.
TrippoliSMessoriA.Cost-effectiveness analyses of statistically ineffective treatments. JAMA. 1998;280:1992 (1992).
75.
MorrisLAProduct labeling and pharmacoeconomic information. Am Heart J.1999;137:S78–80.
76.
TempleR.Role of government agencies regarding cost-effectiveness claims: FDA perspective. Am Heart J.1999;137:S75–77.
77.
EvansRGManufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation. Ann Int Med.1995;122:59–60.
78.
SchulmanKRubensteinLBlickHRelationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomic and clinical research. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:206–220.
79.
HillmanAEisenbergJPaulyMAvoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. New Engl J Med.1991;324:1362–1365.
80.
United States Congress.The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–33).
81.
PaltielADStinnettAAMaking health policy decisions: Is human instinct rational? Is rational choice human?Chance. 1996;9:34–39.
82.
LuceBRCost-effectiveness analysis: obstacles to standardization and its use in regulating pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;3:1–9.
83.
SonnenbergFARobertsMSTsevatJWongJBBarryMKentDLToward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care. 1994;32:JS52–JS64.
84.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMCCost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Report of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
85.
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology.Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Int Med.1995;122:61–70.
86.
GendusoLAKotsanosJGReview of health economic guidelines in the form of regulations, principles, policies, and positions. Drug Inf J.1996;30:1003–1016.
87.
HenryD.Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation decisions: The development of Australian Guidelines for Pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics. 1992;1:54–67.
88.
StewartASchmierJKLuceBRA survey of standards and guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Am Heart J.1999;137:S53–61.
89.
KassirerJAngellM.The Journal's policy on costeffectiveness analyses. New Engl J Med.1994;331:669–670.
90.
BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to BMJ. Br Med J.1996;313:275–283.
91.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 1995.
92.
Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation.Guidelines for Formulary Submissions. Rancho Cordova, CA: Integrated Pharmaceutical Services and Foundation Health Corporation; 1996.
93.
LangleyPSullivanS.Pharmacoeconomic guidelines for formulary submission in managed care. PharmacoEconomics Outcomes News. December 27, 1996.
94.
TempleRO'NeillR.Principles for the Review of Pharmacoeconomic Promotion. Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administration, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications; 1995.
95.
KesslerDRoseJTempleRTherapeutic class wars: drug promotion in a competitive marketplace. New Engl J Med.1994;331:1350–1353.
96.
Food and Drug Administration, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications.Principles for the Review of Pharmacoeconomic Promotion: Draft Guidelines. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications; 1995.
97.
NeumannPJZinnerDEPaltielADThe FDA's oversight of pharmacoeconomic analysis. Health Affairs. 1996;15:54–71.
