Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;6(3):428-442.
doi: 10.1080/15598608.2012.695571. Epub 2012 Aug 10.

Median-Based Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)

Affiliations

Median-Based Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)

Heejung Bang et al. J Stat Theory Pract. 2012.

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a type of economic evaluation that examines the costs and health outcomes of alternative strategies and has been extensively applied in health sciences. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represents the additional cost of one unit of outcome gained by one strategy compared with another, has become a popular methodology in CEA. Despite its popularity, limited attention has been paid to summary measures other than the mean for summarizing cost as well as effectiveness in the context of CEA. Although some apparent advantages of other central tendency measures such as median for cost data that are often highly skewed are well understood, thus far, the median has rarely been considered in the ICER. In this paper, we propose the median-based ICER, along with inferential procedures, and suggest that mean and median-based ICERs be considered together as complementary tools in CEA for informed decision making, acknowledging the pros and cons of each. If the mean and median-based CEAs are concordant, we may feel reasonably confident about the cost-effectiveness of an intervention, but if they provide different results, our confidence may need to be adjusted accordingly, pending further evidence.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; cost-effectiveness plane; mean cost; median cost.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
Reproduced with permission. Obenchain RL. J Biopharmaceut Stat. © 1999.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Cost-effectiveness plane using the mean (upper) vs. the median (lower): Schizophrenia study
The solid line indicates the point estimate, and the broken line indicates a 95% confidence interval for the ICER (connected by arc), obtained from the bootstrap-wedge method. Note that the scale is different on the y-axis.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cost-effectiveness plane using the mean (upper) vs. the median (lower): Prostate cancer study
The solid line indicates the point estimate and the broken line indicate a 95% confidence interval for the ICER (connected by arc), obtained from the bootstrap-wedge method.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness plane using the mean (upper) vs. the median (lower): Simulated data
The solid line indicates the point estimate and the broken line indicate a 95% confidence interval for the ICER (connected by arc), obtained from the bootstrap-percentile method. Note that the scale is different on the y-axis.

References

    1. Bang H, Tsiatis AA. Median regression with censored cost data. Biometrics. 2002;58:643–649. - PubMed
    1. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Medical decision making. 1990;10:212–214. - PubMed
    1. Bloomfield DJ, Krahn MD, Neogi T, et al. Economic evaluation of chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: based on a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. Journal of clinical oncology. 1998;16:2272–2279. - PubMed
    1. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics. 2001;20:441–457. - PubMed
    1. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters: The need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma. BMJ. 2000;321:1362–1363. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources