scholarly journals Causal Spousal Health Spillover Effects and Implications for Program Evaluation

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 144-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Fletcher ◽  
Ryne Marksteiner

Current methods of cost effectiveness analysis implicitly assume zero spillovers among social ties. This can underestimate the benefits of health interventions and misallocate resources toward interventions with lower comprehensive effects. We discuss the implications of social spillovers for program evaluation and document the first evidence of causal spillovers of health behaviors between spouses by leveraging experimental data from the Lung Health Study (smoking) and COMBINE Study (drinking). We find large decreases in spousal substance use from treatments with a therapy component, which reduces the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of some treatments by 12 to 18 percent. (JEL D61, H52, I12, I18, J12)

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. A382
Author(s):  
P. Mernagh ◽  
K. Coleman ◽  
J. Cumming ◽  
T. Green ◽  
J. Harris ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Getachew Teshome Eregata ◽  
Alemayehu Hailu ◽  
Karin Stenberg ◽  
Kjell Arne Johansson ◽  
Ole Frithjof Norheim ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Cost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia’s essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia’s EHSP. Methods: In this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization (WHO) CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective methodology (CHOICE) for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits. We estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1,000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results. Results: We found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1,000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1,000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1,000 per HLY. Conclusion: The present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia’s disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization’s generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia’s EHSP.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy B. Knudsen ◽  
Pamela M. McMahon ◽  
G. Scott Gazelle

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an analytic tool that provides a framework for comparing the health benefits and resource expenditures associated with competing medical and public health interventions, thereby allowing decision makers to identify interventions that yield the greatest amount of health, given their resource constraints. Models are important components of most, if not all, CEAs, and they play a key role in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs, in particular. In this article, we describe the basic types of models used to evaluate cancer screening programs and provide examples of the use of models in CEAs and to guide cancer screening policy. Finally, we offer some suggestions for important concepts to consider when interpreting model results.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Getachew Teshome ◽  
Alemayehu Hailu ◽  
Karin Stenberg ◽  
Kjell Arne Johansson ◽  
Ole Frithjof Norheim ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Cost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia’s essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia’s EHSP. Methods: In this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective methodology for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits, and we estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1,000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results. Results: We found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1,000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1,000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1,000 per HLY. Conclusion: The present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia’s disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization’s generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia’s EHSP.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document