Estimation of the cost-effective threshold of a quality-adjusted life year in China based on the value of statistical life

90Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Cost-effective threshold (CET) is essential for health technology assessment and decision-making based on health economic evaluations. Recently, it has been argued that the commonly used once and three times of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita CETs of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are not necessarily empirically supported in all countries. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the CET of a QALY as times of GDP per capita in China, of which the reimbursement coverage decisions are increasingly engaging economic evaluations. Estimates on the value of statistical life (VSL) in China were identified from several studies in the literature and converted to times of GDP per capita, the weighted average of which was used for subsequent calculation. By pooling data on population mortality, health utility, and age distribution, we estimated the value of a statistical QALY (VSQ) from VSL using an established mathematical process, which represented the theoretical upper bound of CET. The corresponding point estimate and theoretical lower bound were obtained using their numerical relationships with the upper bound. Scenarios analyses were also conducted. The estimated CET, its upper bound, and its lower bound were 1.45, 2.90, and 1.16 times of GDP per capita in China, respectively. In different scenarios, the estimated CET varied but was greater than once GDP per capita in most cases. As such, the CET of a QALY in China is close to 1.5 times of GDP per capita, which should be benchmarked for future ICER-based coverage decisions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cai, D., Shi, S., Jiang, S., Si, L., Wu, J., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Estimation of the cost-effective threshold of a quality-adjusted life year in China based on the value of statistical life. European Journal of Health Economics, 23(4), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01384-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free