Quality of economic evaluations in health care

The Checklist for Standard Methodological Requirements and Reporting of Economic Evaluation of Medicines in Slovakia

OBJECTIVES

We have developed a scientifically well-grounded, methodological, and reporting checklist for economic evaluation (EE) of medicines in the Slovak health technology assessment process, which serves as a supplement to the Slovak pharmacoeconomic guidelines.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using an iterative process in which items were generated and gradually added to the baseline checklist based on shortcomings identified in an analysis of Slovak EEs, using relevant published checklists, and Slovak, as well as international, methodological guidance that was identified in the systematic literature review. The selection of checklist recommendations, their clarity, and relevance to the Slovak setting were validated in the online survey.

RESULTS

From the sample of 151 price and reimbursement submissions published between January 2018 and July 2021, almost half of them (n = 73) received at least 1 request from the Ministry of Healthcare to justify or modify the methodology used in the EE; and in 18 proceedings, a negative opinion was issued because of shortcomings identified in the EE. The 25-items preliminary checklist, resulting from an iterative working process, has been validated in an online survey conducted among members of ISPOR Chapter Slovakia. After incorporating relevant comments, the final proposal for the Slovak checklist consists of 55 recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The research represented the first attempt to create a Slovak EE checklist, which serves as a part of ISPOR Slovakia pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Implementation of the checklist allows checking whether EE meets legislative and methodological requirements and thus helps in improving the appropriateness and standardization of EEs in Slovakia.

Unbiasing costs? An appraisal of economic assessment alongside randomized trials in neonatology

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials benefit from the protections against bias inherent in randomization. In this systematic review, we assessed the frequency and quality of economic assessments alongside randomized controlled trials of interventions in neonates published between 1990 and 2016. Over that period, 58 economic assessments were published, corresponding to approximately 2% of RCTs. We noted significant methodological limitations of these studies, including limitation of included costs to the health sector or payer rather than broader categories such as family or community expenditures (81%), short time horizon for cost measurement (less than one year in 60%), lack of reporting of uncertainty (26%), and infrequent analysis of costs and effects in a single metric (combined in 45%). Strategies for improving the quality and frequency of economic evaluations in neonatology are discussed, including selection of appropriate trials, funding, and peer review.

[GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for coverage decisions]

BACKGROUND

Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE project, a GRADE working group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for different types of decisions, including coverage ones.

METHODS

We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework.

RESULTS

The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using 12 criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions.

CONCLUSION

The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

GRADE EVIDENCE TO DECISION (EtD) FRAMEWORK FOR COVERAGE DECISIONS

Objectives: Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) Project, a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for different types of decisions, including coverage ones.

Methods: We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework.

Results: The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using twelve criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions.

Conclusions: The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

Developing and testing a cost data collection instrument for noncommunicable disease registry planning

BACKGROUND

This article reports on the methods and framework we have developed to guide economic evaluation of noncommunicable disease registries.

METHODS

We developed a cost data collection instrument, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) International Registry Costing Tool (IntRegCosting Tool), based on established economics methods We performed in-depth case studies, site visit interviews, and pilot testing in 11 registries from multiple countries including India, Kenya, Uganda, Colombia, and Barbados to assess the overall quality of the data collected from cancer and cardiovascular registries.

RESULTS

Overall, the registries were able to use the IntRegCosting Tool to assign operating expenditures to specific activities. We verified that registries were able to provide accurate estimation of labor costs, which is the largest expenditure incurred by registries. We also identified several factors that can influence the cost of registry operations, including size of the geographic area served, data collection approach, local cost of living, presence of rural areas, volume of cases, extent of consolidation of records to cases, and continuity of funding.

CONCLUSION

Internal and external registry factors reveal that a single estimate for the cost of registry operations is not feasible; costs will vary on the basis of factors that may be beyond the control of the registries. Some factors, such as data collection approach, can be modified to improve the efficiency of registry operations. These findings will inform both future economic data collection using a web-based tool and cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of registry operations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and other locations with similar characteristics.

It is time to review how unlicensed medicines are used

The safe and effective use of medicines is an integral part of the medicine safety agenda. We present a phenomenological topic review of the literature relating to the use of unlicensed medicines (ULM). There is evidence to demonstrate that the use of ULM is associated with increased incidence of adverse drug reactions, and that despite advances in medicine regulation and guidance from professional organisations, the use of ULM in at risk populations has not reduced. There is also evidence to suggest that patients and their carers are not being provided with adequate information about their medicines and that ULM are being used where safer licensed alternatives are available. This is contrary to the philosophy of "patient-focussed care". We conclude that organisational governance processes and professional guidelines have not kept pace with regulatory developments or changes in legal and ethical understanding. We recommend that governance procedures for ULM be updated across healthcare settings to ensure that patients are involved in the decisions made about their medicines including the regulatory status of the medicine. This includes ensuring adequate consent is obtained from the patient (or their advocate). We also recommend that professional bodies clarify their position on when ULM can be used instead of licensed medicines to ensure that licensed medicines are used wherever possible. In the current economic environment, commissioners and clinicians must resist the temptation to use lower-quality ULM in place of licensed ones to cut costs. We go on to recommend areas of further research including the extent of ULM prescribing where licensed alternatives exist and the geographical and social factors that influence clinician prescribing of ULM.

Cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions for highly active antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase the adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-infected patients in developed countries (WHO stratum A).

METHODS

A systematic search for comparative health economic studies was conducted in the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, HEED, and EconLit. The identified publications were selected by two reviewers independently according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, these were evaluated according to a standardized checklist and finally extracted, analyzed, and summarized.

RESULTS

After reviewing the abstracts and full texts four relevant studies were identified. Different educational programs were compared as well as the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). A critical aspect to be considered in particular was the poor transparency of the cost data. In three cost-utility analyses the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the baseline scenario were each under USD 15,000. The sensitivity analyses with a presumed maximum threshold of USD 50,000/QALY showed a predominantly cost-effective result. In one study that examined DOT the costs add up to over USD 150,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that adherence interventions for HAART in HIV-infected patients can be cost-effective. Nevertheless, the quality of the included studies is deficient and only a few of the possible adherence interventions are taken into consideration. A final assessment of the cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions in general is, therefore, not possible.

Systematic review and quality assessment of cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009).

STUDY SELECTION

Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assessment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.

State of health economic evaluation research in Saudi Arabia: a review

Background

If evaluation of economic evidence is to be used increasingly in Saudi Arabia, a review of the published literature would be useful to inform policy decision-makers of the current state of research and plan future research agendas. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of the state of health economic evaluation research within the Saudi context with regard to the number, characteristics, and quality of published articles.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on May 8, 2011 to identify health economic articles pertaining to Saudi Arabia in the PubMed, Embase, and EconLit databases, using the following terms alone or in combination: “cost*”, “economics”, “health economics”, “cost-effectiveness”, “cost-benefit”, “cost minimization”, “cost utility analysis”, and “Saudi”. Reference lists of the articles identified were also searched for further articles. The tables of contents of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal and the Saudi Medical Journal were reviewed for the previous 5 years.

Results

The search identified 535 citations. Based on a reading of abstracts and titles, 477 papers were excluded. Upon reviewing the full text of the remaining 58 papers, 43 were excluded. Fifteen papers were included. Ten were categorized as full economic evaluations and five as partial economic evaluations. These articles were published between 1997 and 2010. The majority of the studies identified did not clearly state the perspective of their evaluation. There are many concerns about the methods used to collect outcome and costs data. Only one study used some sort of sensitivity analysis to assess the effects of uncertainty on the robustness of its conclusions.

Conclusion

This review highlights major flaws in the design, analysis, and reporting of the identified economic analyses. Such deficiencies mean that the local economic evidence available to decision-makers is not very useful. Thus, building research capability in health economics is warranted.

Cost utility analyses in international disaster responses-where are they?

International health care providers have flocked to Haiti and other disaster-affected countries in record numbers. Anecdotal articles often give "body counts" to describe what was accomplished, followed months later by articles suggesting outcomes could have been better. Mention will be made that various interventions were "expensive," or not the best use of limited funds. But there is very little science to post-intervention evaluations, especially with regard to the value for the money spent. This is surprising, because a large body of literature exists with regard to the Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) of health care interventions. Applying reproducible metrics to disaster interventions will help improve performance.This study will: (1) introduce and explain basic CUA; (2) review why the application of CUA is difficult in disaster settings; (3) consider how disasters may be unique with regard to CUA; (4) demonstrate past and theoretical utilization of CUA in disaster settings; and (5) suggest future utilization of CUA by healthcare providers in Disaster Response.

A methodological framework of preparing economic evidence for selection of medicines in the Chinese setting

Medicines are becoming a major component of health expenditure in China. Selection of effective and cost-effective medicines represents an important effort to improve medicines use. A guideline on cost-effectiveness studies has been available in China. This guideline, however, fails to be a practical tool to prepare and critically appraise economic evidence. This article discusses, in the Chinese context, the approach to integrating economic component into the medicines selection, and elaborates the methods of producing economic evidence, including conducing economic reviews and primary economic studies.

Developing and testing a cost-assessment tool for cancer screening programs

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening programs require substantial resources, and economic assessments have become increasingly important in identifying the most cost-effective means of conducting these programs. Such economic assessments require detailed program cost data, but there is no standardized instrument for obtaining these data.

PURPOSE

This study was designed to develop a standardized instrument to collect cost data from cancer screening programs.

METHODS

A cost-assessment tool (CAT) was developed to collect annual cost data based on the findings from case studies at four sites funded by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). The data elements collected in the CAT were specifically tailored to collect cost and resource-use information from cancer screening programs. The tool was pilot-tested at nine NBCCEDP sites, and activity-based costs were generated by assigning all cost and resource-use data to specific program activities. Data were collected from November 2004 to February 2005, and the analysis was performed from March to July 2005.

RESULTS

Overall, a majority of the sites (eight of nine) met the acceptable threshold of <5% of total cost remaining unallocated. On average, the largest cost components of the nine programs were screening and diagnostic services (44.4%); recruitment (11.4%); database management (10.9%); and patient support/case management (9.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the CAT pilot-testing showed that NBCCEDP cancer screening programs were able to report detailed activity-based cost data. The comparability of these cost data across programs should facilitate pooled analyses that, in turn, may lead to a better understanding of the impact and cost effectiveness of the screening program.

Pharmacoeconomic concepts in antiplatelet therapy: understanding cost-effectiveness analyses using clopidogrel as an example

The rising cost of drug therapy has been accompanied by demands from payers for pharmacoeconomic studies to assess the value for money of new treatments. There are 5 types of such analyses: cost analysis (evaluates only costs); cost minimization (compares costs of treatments with identical outcomes); cost-effectiveness (evaluates the cost of treatment in relation to clinical benefit to derive a cost per outcome); cost utility (evaluates cost of treatment in relation to survival adjusted for quality of life,) and cost benefit (evaluates all clinical outcomes, such as prolonged life, in monetary terms). The most commonly used are cost-effectiveness and cost utility. The aim of this article is to provide the nonexpert reader with a basic understanding of these analyses, using pharmacoeconomic evaluations of clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes as examples. Greater clinician understanding of pharmacoeconomic principles (and pitfalls) will enhance input of the physicians into the decision-making process to maximize the benefit of limited health care resources.

The methodological quality of economic evaluations of guideline implementation into clinical practice: a systematic review of empiric studies

OBJECTIVES

Despite the emphasis on efficiency of health-care services delivery, there is an imperfect evidence base to inform decisions about whether and how to develop and implement guidelines into clinical practice. In general, studies evaluating the economics of guideline implementation lack methodological rigor. We conducted a systematic review of empiric studies to assess advances in the economic evaluations of guideline implementation.

METHODS

The Cochrane Effective Professional and Organisational Change Group specialized register and the MEDLINE database were searched for English publications between January 1998 and July 2004 that reported objective effect measures and implementation costs. We extracted data on study characteristics, quality of study design, and economic methodology. It was assessed whether the economic evaluations followed methodological guidance.

RESULTS

We included 24 economic evaluations, involving 21 controlled trials and three interrupted time series designs. The studies involved varying settings, targeted professionals, targeted behaviors, clinical guidelines, and implementation strategies. Overall, it was difficult to determine the quality of study designs owing to poor reporting. In addition, most economic evaluations were methodologically flawed: studies did not follow guidelines for evaluation design, data collection, and data analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing importance of the value for money of providing health care seems to be reflected by an increase in empiric economic evaluations of guideline implementation. Because of the heterogeneity and poor methodological quality of these studies, however, the resulting evidence is still of limited use in decision-making. There seems to be a need for more methodological guidance, especially in terms of data collection and data synthesis, to appropriately evaluate the economics of developing and implementing guidelines into clinical practice.

A review of health care models for coronary heart disease interventions

This article reviews models for the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). Whereas most of the models described were developed to assess the cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies, other models have also been used to extrapolate clinical trials, for capacity and resource planning, or to predict the future population with heart disease. In this paper we investigate the use of modelling techniques in relation to different types of health intervention, and we discuss the assumptions and limitations of these approaches. Many of the models reviewed in this paper use decision tree models for acute or short term interventions, and Markov or state transition models for chronic or long term interventions. Discrete event simulation has, however, been used for more complex whole system models, and for modelling resource-constrained interventions and operational planning. Nearly all of the studies in our review used cohort-based models rather than population based models, and therefore few models could estimate the likely total costs and benefits for a population group. Most studies used de novo purpose built models consisting of only a small number of health states. Models of the whole disease system were less common. The model descriptions were often incomplete. We recommend that the reporting of model structure, assumptions and input parameters is more explicit, to reduce the risk of biased reporting and ensure greater confidence in the model results.

Genetic screening by DNA technology: A systematic review of health economic evidence

Objectives:The Human Genome Project has led to a multitude of new potential screening targets on the level of human DNA. The aim of this systematic review is to critically summarize the evidence from health economic evaluations of genetic screening in the literature.

Methods:Based on an extensive explorative search, an appropriate algorithm for a systematic database search was developed. Twenty-one health economic evaluations were identified and appraised using published quality criteria.

Results:Genetic screening for eight conditions has been found to be investigated by health economic evaluation: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) colorectal cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC), retinoblastoma, familial hypercholesterolemia, hereditary hemochromatosis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and cystic fibrosis. Results range from dominated to cost-saving. Population-wide genetic screening may be considered cost-effective with limited quality of evidence only for three conditions. The methodology of the studies was of varying quality. Cost-effectiveness was primarily influenced by mutation prevalence, genetic test costs, mortality risk, effectiveness of treatment, age at screening, and discount rate.

Conclusions:Health economic evidence on genetic screening is limited: Only few conditions have properly been evaluated. Based on the existing evidence, healthcare decision makers should consider the introduction of selective genetic screening for FAP and HNPCC. As genetic test costs are declining, the existing evaluations may warrant updating. Especially in the case of hereditary hemochromatosis, genetic population screening may be about to turn from a dominated to a cost-effective or even cost-saving intervention.

Outcomes research collaborations between third-party payers, academia, and pharmaceutical manufacturers: What can we learn from clinical research?

Research collaborations between academic researchers, regulatory agencies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have made the drug development process more efficient and have frequently supported the successful documentation of quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceuticals (the so-called three hurdles). Over recent years issues of drug cost, access, and utilization have moved to center stage, giving rise to a "fourth hurdle approval" process by third-party payers. This requires new forms of collaborative research among new players. This contribution highlights the need for a "triangular" relationship in the field of outcomes research between scientists in academia, third-party payer institutions, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. We discuss, and illustrate by case studies, how successful models of collaboration from the drug development process might be relevant to research activities related to the fourth hurdle. Case studies which may provide useful models for collaborative outcomes research include the "International Conference on Harmonization" process, the voluntary consultation procedures established by drug regulatory agencies, and the Quebec experience in database sharing.

Common Methodological Flaws in Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations are increasingly being used by those bodies such as government agencies and managed care groups that make decisions about the reimbursement of health technologies. However, several reviews of economic evaluations point to numerous deficiencies in the methodology of studies or the failure to follow published methodological guidelines. This article, written for healthcare decision-makers and other users of economic evaluations, outlines the common methodological flaws in studies, focussing on those issues that are likely to be most important when deciding on the reimbursement, or guidance for use, of health technologies. The main flaws discussed are: (i) omission of important costs or benefits; (ii) inappropriate selection of alternatives for comparison; (iii) problems in making indirect comparisons; (iv) inadequate representation of the effectiveness data; (v) inappropriate extrapolation beyond the period observed in clinical studies; (vi) excessive use of assumptions rather than data; (vii) inadequate characterization of uncertainty; (viii) problems in aggregation of results; (ix) reporting of average cost-effectiveness ratios; (x) lack of consideration of generalizability issues; and (xi) selective reporting of findings. In each case examples are given from the literature and guidance is offered on how to detect flaws in economic evaluations.

Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001

PURPOSE

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have become increasingly popular, although questions persist about their comparability and credibility. Our objectives were to: 1) describe the growth and characteristics of CUAs published in the peer-reviewed literature through 2001; 2) investigate whether CUA quality has improved over time; 3) examine whether quality varies by the experience of journals in publishing CUAs, or the source of external funding for study investigators; and 4) examine changes in practices in US-based studies following recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (USPCEHM). This study updates and expands our previous work, which examined CUAs through 1997.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the English-language medical literature for original CUAs published from 1976 through 2001, using Medline and other databases. Each study was audited independently by two trained readers, who recorded the methodological and reporting practices used.

RESULTS

Our review identified 533 original CUAs. Comparing articles published in 1998 to 2001 (n = 305) with those published in 1976 to 1997 (n = 228), studies improved in almost all categories, including: clearly presenting the study perspective (73% vs. 52%, P < 0.001); discounting both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (82% vs. 73%, P = 0.0115); and reporting incremental cost-utility ratios (69% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). The proportion of studies disclosing funding sources did not change (65% vs. 65%, P = 0.939). Adherence to recommended practices was greater in more experienced journals, and roughly equal in industry versus non-industry-funded analyses. The data suggest an impact in methodological practices used in US-based CUAs in accordance with recommendations of the USPCEHM.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to methodological and reporting practices in published CUAs is improving, although many studies still omit basic elements. Medical journals, particularly those with little experience publishing cost-effectiveness analyses, should adopt and enforce standard protocols for conducting and reporting CUAs.

An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of fast tracking bacteriological specimens for mycobacteria

A virtual model, using six predetermined criteria for fast tracking tuberculosis specimens was devised to improve the cost effectiveness of the MB/BacT system. All specimens received at a central laboratory were audited for the six criteria over a 6-month period. By assuming that only those specimens fulfilling these criteria were fast tracked the theoretical cost savings could be calculated. To prevent possible delay in speciating mycobacteria, the number of criteria were expanded to nine, and a further 6 month audit carried out. In the first 6-month period, 728 specimens were tested. Had the initial hypothetical criteria excluded some of the specimens, only 351 specimens would have been tested through the fast-track system at a saving of pounds sterling 942 (dollars 1696), (52%) of the total cost, but five culture results positive for environmental mycobacteria would have been delayed. In a second 6-month survey the criteria were expanded. Using these no positive culture would have been missed but the savings would only have been 26% of the total cost. Introducing exclusion criteria for rapid testing can improve the cost effectiveness of rapid culture methods with no important loss of clinically necessary information.

Economic evaluation in evidence-based practice

The economic evaluation of health care interventions and technologies is an essential part of any modern healthcare system. In recent years a growing demand for information about the economic benefits of healthcare technologies has seen a significant increase in the number of published economic evaluations of healthcare. Economic evaluation reviews have demonstrated considerable methodological flaws in a significant number of analyses in health care. Widely accepted guidance regarding the manner in which multinational economic evaluations should be designed, analysed and presented is still awaited. The main types of economic analyses are described in this article, providing a framework along which to evaluate them.