Increased spending and reduced funding for health care is forcing decision makers to prioritize procedures and redistribute funds. Decision making is based on reliable data regarding the costs and benefits of medical and surgical procedures; such a study design is known as an economic evaluation. The onus is on the plastic surgery community to produce high-quality economic evaluations that support the cost effectiveness of the procedures that are performed. The present review focuses on the cost-utility analysis and its role in deciding whether a novel technique/procedure/technology should be accepted over one that is prevalent. Additionally, the five steps in undertaking a cost-utility (effectiveness) analysis are outlined.
World Health Organization,. The World Health Report – Health Systems Financing: The Path to Universal Coverage.Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. <www.who/int/int/whr/2010/en/index.html> (Accessed June 13, 2012).
4.
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences,. Payments to Ontario Physicians from Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Sources 1992/93 to 2009/10 ICES Investigative Report.Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2012. <www.ices.on.ca/file/ICES_PhysiciansReport_2012.pdf> (Accessed June 30, 2012).
ThomaAFarrokhyarFBhandariMTandanV. Users' guide to the surgical literature: How to assess a randomized controlled trial in surgery.Can J Surg2004; 47: 200–8.
7.
ThomaACornacchiSDLovricsPJGoldsmithCH. Users' guide to the surgical literature: How to assess an article on health-related quality of life.Can J Surg2008; 51: 215–24.
8.
ThomaASpragueSTandanV. Users' guide to the surgical literature: How to use an article on economic analysis.Can J Surg2001; 44: 347–54.
9.
ThomaAStrumasNRockwellGMcKnightL. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis in plastic surgery clinical research.Clin Plastic Surg2008; 35: 285–96.
10.
ThomaAIgnacyTALiYKCoroneosCJ. Reporting the level of evidence in the Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery: Why is it important?Can J Plast Surg2012; 20: 12–6.
LeeJEFosPJZunigaMAKastlPRSungJH. Assessing health-related quality of life in cataract patients: The relationship between utility and health-related quality of life.Qual Life Res2000; 9: 1127–35.
15.
BusbeeBGBrownMMBrownGCSharmaS. Incremental cost-effectiveness of initial cataract surgery.Ophthalmology2002; 109: 606–12.
16.
LeeJEFosPJZunigaMAKastlPRSungJH. Health-related quality of life of cataract patients: Cross-cultural comparisons of utility and psychometric measures.Ophthalmic Epidemiol2003; 10: 177–91.
17.
ThomaASpragueSVeltriKDukuEFurlongW. A prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery: Health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes.Plast Reconstr Surg2007; 120: 13–26.
18.
DrummondMFSculpherMJTorranceGWO'BrienBJStoddartGL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd edn.New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
19.
GoldMRSeigelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
20.
ThomaAMcKnightLL. Quality-adjusted life year as a surgical outcome: A primer for plastic surgeons.Plast Reconstr Surg2010; 125: 1279–87.
21.
ZiolkowskiNVoineskosSIgnacyTThomaA. Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Plastic Surgery. Presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Toronto, June 5 to 9, 2012.
22.
BrooksR. EuroQol: The current state of play.Health Policy1996; 37: 53–72.
23.
HorsmanJFurlongWFeenyDTorranceG. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): Concepts, measurement properties and applications.Health Qual Life Outcomes2003; 1: 54. <www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/54> (Accessed June 15, 2012).
24.
KaplanRMAndersonJP. A general health policy model: Update and applications.Health Serv Res1988; 23: 203–35.
25.
LaupacisAFeenyDDetskyASTugwellPX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.CMAJ1992; 146: 473–81.
26.
BrauerCARosenABOlchanskiNVNeumannPJ. Cost-utility analysis in orthopaedic surgery.J Bone Joint Surg (Am)2005; 87: 1253–9.
27.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Incorporating health economics in guidelines and assessing resource impact.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007. <www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/GuidelinesManualChapter8.pdf> (Accessed July 3, 2012).
28.
CohenDJBreallJAHoKK. Economics of elective coronary revascularization: Comparison of the costs and charges for conventional angioplasty, directional atherectomy, stenting and bypass surgery.J Am Coll Cardiol1993; 22: 1052–9.
29.
TairaDASetoTBSiegristRCosproveRBerezinRCohenDJ. Comparison of analytic approaches for economic evaluation of new technologies alongside multicenter clinical trials.Am Heart J2003; 145: 452–8.
30.
ChungKCOdaTSaddawi-KonefkaDShauverMJ. An economic analysis of hand transplantation in the United States.Plast Reconstr Surg2010; 125: 589–98.
31.
ThomaAWongVHSpragueSDukuE. A cost-utility analysis of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release.Can J Plast Surg2006; 14: 15–20.
32.
RockwellGMThomaA. Should the donor radius be plated prophylactically after harvest of a radial osteocutaneous flap? A cost-effectiveness analysis.J Reconstr Microsurg2004; 20: 297–306.
33.
ThomaAKhuthailaDRockwellGVeltriK. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction.Microsurgery2003; 23: 287–95.
34.
ThomaAVeltriKKhuthailaDRockwellGDukuE. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap in post-mastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Plast Reconstr Surg2004; 113: 1650–61.
35.
ThomaAHainesTVeltriKGoldsmithCHO'BrienBJQuartlyC. A methodological guide to performing a cost-utility comparing surgical techniques.Can J Plast Surg2004; 12: 179–187.
36.
OfmanJJSullivanSDNeumannPJ. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: Implications of utilizing the QHES.J Managed Care Pharm2003; 9: 53–61.
