Cited by 233Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePharmaceutical Economics and PolicyEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies: Recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

Siegel, Joanna E., Torrance, George W., Russell, Louise B., Luce, Bryan R., Weinstein, Milton C., Gold, Marthe R.·1997·PharmacoEconomics

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

Crossref · 10.2165/00019053-199711020-00005

Cites

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.

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?

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)
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