The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Recommendations on Perspectives for the Reference Case
Abstract
The original Panel recommended a societal Reference Case as a point of comparison across studies. The Second Panel reconsidered at length the perspectives that Reference Case analyses should use. Many, if not most published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have not used a true societal perspective. Further, decision-making bodies that have incorporated CEA into health technology assessment to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions have not adopted a societal perspective. Given this backdrop and various options, the Second Panel recommends that all studies report two Reference Case analyses: one based on a healthcare sector perspective and one based on a societal perspective. We recommend that analysts present all items in an analysis as disaggregated consequences in an Impact Inventory to ensure that all consequences, including those outside the formal healthcare sector, are considered regularly and comprehensively, as they have generally not been to date.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Including multiple perspectives, while analytically burdensome, offers the opportunity to evaluate the economic consequences of different implementation decisions from various viewpoints [2].”
From Implementation science issues in understanding, collecting, and using cost estimates: A multi-stakeholder perspective (2021) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eisman, A. B., Quanbeck, A., Bounthavong, M., Panattoni, L., & Glasgow, R. E. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01143-x · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Neumann, P. J., Sanders, G. D., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., Kuntz, K. M., Meltzer, D. O., Owens, D. K., Prosser, L. A., Salomon, J. A., Sculpher, M. J., Trikalinos, T. A., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., & Ganiats, T. G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2016-12-12
- Pages
- 67-74
- OpenAlex
- W2552997830
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 9.77
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (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
- reference case, societal perspective, cost-effectiveness analysis, health technology assessment
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
