• Biosimilars
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • All Topics
OHE OHE
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

News & Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Close
OHE OHE
  • Research & Publications
  • News & Insights
  • Education
  • Innovation Policy Prize
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe

Research & Publications

All Publications

Filter by:
  • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
  • Biosimilars
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Chronic Diseases
  • Combination Therapies
  • COVID-19 Research
  • Digital Health
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Emerging Markets
  • EQ-5D and PROMs
  • Health Care Systems
  • Health Data and Statistics
  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Precision Medicine
  • Real World Evidence
  • Use of Medicines
  • Value-Based Pricing
  • Vaccine Research
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
  • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
  • Value, Affordability and Decision Making

News & Insights

  • News
  • Events
  • Insights
  • Bulletin

Education

  • Education Hub
  • OHE Graduate School
  • EVIA Programme

Innovation Policy Prize

  • The Prize Fund
  • 2022 Prize Fund

Latest Research & Publications

Proposal for a General Outcome-based Value Attribution Framework for Combination Therapies

CombTher_Adobe_photoguns_portrait
Read more
© photoguns
  • Digital Health

Navigating the Landscape of Digital Health – United Kingdom

Healthcare_Adobe_elenabsl
Read more

2021 OHE Annual Report to the Charity Commission

charityreport_lina-trochez-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Lina Trochez/Unsplash

Supporting the Era of Green Pharmaceuticals in the UK

Sustainability_AdobeStock_270582392_landscape
Read more

Quality of life and wellbeing in individuals with experience of fertility problems and assisted reproductive techniques

Quality of life assisted reproduction Cover
Read more
  • Cell and Gene Therapies
  • Value, Affordability, and…

Health Technology Assessment of Gene Therapies: Are Our Methods Fit for Purpose?

gene_therapies_national-cancer-institute-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
  • Drug Development/R&D
  • Economics of Innovation
  • Health Policy and Regulation

Limitations of CBO’s Simulation Model of New Drug Development as a Tool for Policymakers

CBO-US_mayer-tawfik-K4Ckc0AxgDI-unsplash_landscape
Read more
© Mayer Tawfik/Unsplash
  • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes

When Generic Measures Fail to Reflect What Matters to Patients: Three Case Studies

PROMS_unsplash_National Cancer Institute_landscape
Read more
© NCI/Unsplash
Close
OHE
  • All Publications

    Filter by:
    • Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)
    • Biosimilars
    • Cell and Gene Therapies
    • Chronic Diseases
    • Combination Therapies
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Digital Health
    • Drug Development/R&D
    • Emerging Markets
    • EQ-5D and PROMs
    • Health Care Systems
    • Health Data and Statistics
    • Health Technology Assessment
    • Precision Medicine
    • Real World Evidence
    • Use of Medicines
    • Value-Based Pricing
    • Vaccine Research
    • Economics of Innovation
    • Measuring and Valuing Outcomes
    • Policy, Organisation and Incentives in Health Systems
    • Value, Affordability and Decision Making
    • News
    • Events
    • Insights
    • Bulletin
    • Education Hub
    • OHE Graduate School
    • EVIA Programme
    • The Prize Fund
    • 2022 Prize Fund
  • Events
  • About Us
  • OHE Experts
  • Contact Us
Newsletter SignupSubscribe
Back
  • Insight
11 min read 14th April 2021

Reconciling MCDA and Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Do We Get the Same Decisions?

A new paper explores the equivalence of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in adding elements of value to QALY-based cost-effectiveness decision making. It finds that they are equivalent methods under reasonable assumptions when elements of value can be…

Share:
  •  Twitter
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  • has-icon Email

A new paper explores the equivalence of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in adding elements of value to QALY-based cost-effectiveness decision making. It finds that they are equivalent methods under reasonable assumptions when elements of value can be aggregated into two separate top-level groups: health and financial.

A new paper explores the equivalence of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in adding elements of value to QALY-based cost-effectiveness decision making with an opportunity cost threshold. It finds that they are equivalent methods under reasonable assumptions when elements of value can be aggregated into two separate top-level groups: health and financial.

The potential role for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in HTA decision making has been much debated. A 2019 review by Baltussen et al., which included OHE’s Martina Garau as an author, noted that “its implementation to date has been criticised for being “entirely mechanistic”, ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines.” A strong defence of MCDA was made by Phelps and Madhavan, who, in an earlier paper, had set out an approach to adapting a cost-per-QALY threshold to use as part of an MCDA framework.

The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on U.S. Value Assessment Frameworks recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including new technology in a health plan benefit, offering two major alternative approaches to including additional elements of value deemed relevant by decision makers — augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA), and MCDA — while emphasising the need to apply the relevant willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalise the inclusion decision.

In this paper, Bernarda Zamora, Lou Garrison, Aig Unuigbe and Adrian Towse look at the theoretical equivalence of these two approaches. The MCDA model uses a multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on expected utility theory. In both the ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs for individual attributes are derived in a hierarchical model within two high-level objectives which measure attributes relating to overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption.

Even though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, Zamora et al. demonstrate that, on the basis of the preferences of a health insurance enrollee, value trade-offs reflecting indifference as between receiving and not receiving a medical treatment can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. WTP thresholds are most immediately relevant in health care systems such as the U.S. where the impact of an increase in expenditure from a new technology is on health insurance premiums, and thus on the level of coverage purchased by enrollees. Indeed, some may drop out of insurance cover altogether. The authors find that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in likely main factors considered by decision makers — the costs of the medical technology, income, and the severity of the disease being treated. Risk attitudes also impact value trade-offs, with risk aversion reinforcing the effects of these factors on value trade-offs. Reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA does require, however, that health and consumption are not substitutes – i.e. they are either complements or independent attributes. If they were substitutes, higher consumption would be associated with lower utility from health gains, and the change in value trade-offs would not be predictable. In other words, reconciling ACEA and MCDA decisions requires that good health allows one to enjoy consumption and vice versa, as Smith and Keeney put in their paper “Your Money or Your Life: A Prescriptive Model for Health, Safety, and Consumption Decisions”.

Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. The MCDA multi-attribute utility function value trade-off then represents the same concept as expected utility WTP: the optimal cost-per QALY trade-off. Most MCDA models include several health and non-health domains, for example, the four criteria domains in the Advance Value Framework. Zamora et al. conclude that choice between MCDA and ACEA, when used as tools built on the cost-per-QALY metric, is a pragmatic question for decision-makers. They also note that, although their analysis uses a welfare economics framework, they would expect similar results in a budget-constrained health system where a supply-side opportunity cost threshold is relevant in the short run, such as the UK NHS or a U.S. State Medicaid programme.

Most decision-makers do not use, or want to use, algorithms to make decisions – be they ACEA (net monetary benefit) type formulas or a full quantitative MCDA. The ISPOR STF Report recognised the importance of deliberative processes, but proposed decision-makers consider supporting these with explicit frameworks such as ACEA and MCDA that emphasise structure and transparency. As the Baltussen et al. 2019 paper argues, “quantitative MCDA should always include a deliberative component allowing a committee to make a flexible interpretation of results.” Baltussen et al. also make the case for structured decision making, which they term MCDA with Decision Rules, where, for example, the threshold may vary if certain criteria are met, e.g. vary with severity, as in the case of the Netherlands. Arguably, ICER’s taking of votes on the relevance and importance of specific categories of potential non-QALY other benefit or disadvantage and other contextual considerations in an assessment falls into this category.

Debate will continue as to (i) which elements of value are relevant in decision making in addition to health gain and cost savings, (ii) how these elements should be evidenced and assessed, and (iii) how much discretion should be left to the appraisal committee. However, this paper shows that MCDA anchored on the QALY with an opportunity cost threshold is an equivalent method to the use of QALY-based ACEA.

Acknowledgement

This work was funded by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation (PhRMA Foundation) via a grant award to the University of Washington (P.I. Lou Garrison) for the project “Implementing Augmented Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Challenges and Next Steps”.

Citation

Zamora, B., Garrison, L.P., Unuigbe, A., and Towse, A. (2021).  Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting? Journal of Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 19:13 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-021-00266-8

Related Research

Garrison, L.P. Jr, Neumann, P.J., Willke, R.J. et al. (2018). A health economics approach to U.S. value assessment frameworks—summary and recommendations of the ISPOR special task force report [7]. Value in Health; 21:161–5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301517338949?via%3Dihub

Baltussen, R., Marsh K., Thokala P.,et al. (2019).  Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward.  Value in Health, 22 (11): 1283-1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014

Garau, M. and Devlin, N. (2017). Using MCDA as a decision aid in Health Technology Appraisal for coverage decisions: opportunities, challenges and unresolved questions. In “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions” (Eds.).Marsh, K., Goetghebeur, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R. (2017) Springer.  https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47540-0_14

Garau, M., Hampson, G., Devlin, N. et al. (2018). Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders’ Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL). PharmacoEconomics Open 2, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0048-x

Marsh K., et al., (2016). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19, 125 – 137.

Thokala, et al., (2016). MCDA for Health Care Decision Making – An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19, 1 – 13.

Sussex, J., Rollet, P., Garau, M., Schmitt, C., Kent, A. and Hutchings, A., (2013). A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value in Health, 16(8), pp.1163-1169.

Devlin N., Sussex J.: (2011).  Incorporating Multiple Criteria in HTA – Methods and Processes. Office of Health Economics.

  • Health Technology Assessment…
  • Value, Affordability, and…
  • External Publications

Related Insights

HealthData&Stats_AdobeStock_168196575_landscape
  • Insight
  • August 2022

Improving the Measurement of Valued Output in Primary Care in England

Read more
Good and Broken Light Bulb
  • Insight
  • July 2022

Reforming Primary Health Care in Middle-Income Countries: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Read more
NHSFinance_Adobe_ink-drop-scaled-1
  • Insight
  • June 2022

The State of Play for Cost-effectiveness Thresholds

Read more
Sleepio_Adobe_montblanca-e1673970227875
  • Insight
  • May 2022

Sleepio: Lessons from the Frontier of Digital Therapeutics

Read more
footer_ohe_logo

Leading intellectual authority on global health economics

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

Research & Publications

News & Insights

Innovation Policy Prize

Education

Events

About Us

OHE Experts

Contact Us

Sign Up for the OHE News Bulletin

Newsletter SignupStart Sign Up

The Office of Health Economics (OHE) is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales (registered number 09848965) and its registered office is at 2nd Floor Goldings House, Hay’s Galleria, 2 Hay’s Lane, London, SE1 2HB.

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

© 2023 Website Design

An error has occurred, please try again later.An error has occurred, please try again later.

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in settings.

 Twitter
 Facebook
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!