Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies: Recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Abstract
This article reports the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, sponsored by the US Public Health Service, on standardised methods for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses. Although not expressly directed at analyses of pharmaceutical agents, the Panel's recommendations are relevant to pharmacoeconomic studies. The Panel outlines a 'Reference Case' set of methodological practices to improve quality and comparability of analyses. Designed for studies that inform resource-allocation decisions, the Reference Case includes recommendations for study framing and scope, components of the numerator and denominator of cost-effectiveness ratios, discounting, handling uncertainty and reporting. The Reference Case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective, and includes all effects of interventions on resource use and health. Resource use includes 'time' resources, such as for caregiving or undergoing an intervention. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is the common measure of health effect across Reference Case studies. Although the Panel does not endorse a measure for obtaining quality-of-life weights, several recommendations address the QALY. The Panel recommends a 3% discount rate for costs and health effects. Pharmacoeconomic studies have burgeoned in recent years. The Reference Case analysis will improve study quality and usability, and permit comparison of pharmaceuticals with other health interventions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Visual analogue scales carry low participant burden, show moderate-to-strong test-retest reliability, and are often used to assess health status in longitudinal studies.
“Visual analogue scales carry low-participant burden, show moderate-to-strong test–retest reliability (Salomon & Murray, 2004; Siegel et al., 1997), and are often used to assess health status in longitudinal studies.”
From Perception of Physical Demand, Mental Demand, and Performance: A Comparison of Two Voice Interventions for Parkinson's Disease (2022) · cites this paper as Siegel et al., 1997
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 233
- Authors
- Siegel, J. E., Torrance, G. W., Russell, L. B., Luce, B. R., Weinstein, M. C., & Gold, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (US)
- ORCID
- Russell, Louise B.
- Venue
- PharmacoEconomics
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 159-168
- ISSN
- 1170-7690 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1493990568
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 19.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PharmacoEconomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Keywords
- cost-effectiveness analysis, reference case, quality-adjusted life years, discounting, uncertainty analysis, societal perspective, resource allocation, pharmacological interventions, reporting guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Drug Therapy, Humans, Guidelines as Topic
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