Cited by 2,455Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental ValuationPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Weinstein, Milton C.·1996·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus-based recommendations for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This article, the second in a 3-part series, describes the basis for recommendations constituting the reference case analysis, the set of practices developed to guide CEAs that inform societal resource allocation decisions, and the content of these recommendations. PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, was convened by the US Public Health Service (PHS). EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, and alternative methods used in analyses. Recommendations were developed on the basis of theory where possible, but tempered by ethical and pragmatic considerations, as well as the needs of users. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts prepared by panel working groups were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: The panel's methodological recommendations address (1) components belonging in the numerator and denominator of a cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio; (2) measuring resource use in the numerator of a C/E ratio; (3) valuing health consequences in the denominator of a C/E ratio; (4) estimating effectiveness of interventions; (5) incorporating time preference and discounting; and (6) handling uncertainty. Recommendations are subject to the ¿rule of reason,¿ balancing the burden engendered by a practice with its importance to a study. If researchers follow a standard set of methods in CEA, the quality and comparability of studies, and their ultimate utility, can be much improved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weinstein, M. C.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Weinstein, Milton C.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1996-10-16
Volume
276
Issue
15
Pages
1253
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2043951092
Cited by
2,455
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 130 · 2015: 134 · 2014: 131 · 2013: 113 · 2012: 94
FWCI
185.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
cost-effectiveness analysis, methodological recommendations, resource allocation, health outcome measurement, resource use measurement, time preference, discounting, uncertainty analysis, rule of reason, healthcare decision-making
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Services Research, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, United States, Health Care Rationing, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review