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
Review
. 2021 Nov 1;10(11):673-677.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.244.

Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions for Priority Setting in the Health System: An Update From WHO CHOICE

Melanie Y Bertram  1 , Jeremy A Lauer  1 , Karin Stenberg  1 , Tessa Tan Torres Edejer  1
Affiliations
Review

Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Interventions for Priority Setting in the Health System: An Update From WHO CHOICE

Melanie Y Bertram et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (CHOICE) programme has been a global leader in the field of economic evaluation, specifically cost-effectiveness analysis for almost 20 years. WHO-CHOICE takes a "generalized" approach to cost-effectiveness analysis that can be seen as a quantitative assessment of current and future efficiency within a health system. This supports priority setting processes, ensuring that health stewards know how to spend resources in order to achieve the highest health gain as one consideration in strategic planning. This approach is unique in the global health landscape. This paper provides an overview of the methodological approach, updates to analytic framework over the past 10 years, and the added value of the WHO-CHOICE approach in supporting decision makers as they aim to use limited health resources to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Keywords: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Economic Evaluation; Health Benefit Package.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003;1(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-1-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lauer JA, Rajan D, Bertram MY. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need to focus both on substance and on process: comment on “priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(10):601–603. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.06. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Griffiths EA, Hendrich JK, Stoddart SD, Walsh SC. Acceptance of health technology assessment submissions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above the cost-effectiveness threshold. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:463–476. doi: 10.2147/ceor.s87462. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans DB, Edejer TT, Adam T, Lim SS. Methods to assess the costs and health effects of interventions for improving health in developing countries. BMJ. 2005;331(7525):1137–1140. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7525.1137. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lauer JA, Röhrich K, Wirth H, Charette C, Gribble S, Murray CJ. PopMod: a longitudinal population model with two interacting disease states. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003;1(1):6. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-1-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources