New and dis-improved: on the evaluation and use of less effective, less expensive medical interventions

Balancing innovation and affordability in anti-obesity medications: the role of an alternative weight-maintenance program

Despite remarkable clinical advances in highly effective anti-obesity medications, their high price and potential budget impact pose a major challenge in balancing equitable access and affordability. While most attention has been focused on the amount of weight loss achieved, less consideration has been paid to interventions to sustain weight loss after an individual stops losing weight. Using a policy simulation model, we quantified the impact of a weight-maintenance program following the weight-loss plateau from the initial full-dose glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or incretin mimetic use. We measured long-term health care savings and the loss of some health benefits (eg, maintenance of weight loss, improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, and reductions in diabetes and cardiovascular events). Our model suggested that, compared with continuous long-term full-dose GLP-1 receptor agonists or incretin mimetic drugs, the alternative weight-maintenance program would generate slightly fewer clinical benefits while generating substantial savings in lifetime health care spending. Using less expensive and potentially less effective alternative weight-maintenance programs may provide additional headroom to expand access to anti-obesity medications during the active weight-loss phase without increasing total health care spending.

Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review

Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504.

Cost-effectiveness of monthly follow-up for the treatment of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition: An economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) is a major source of mortality for children in low resource settings. Alternative treatment models that improve acceptability and reduce caregiver burden are needed to improve treatment access. We assessed costs and cost-effectiveness of monthly vs. weekly follow-up (standard-of-care) for treating uncomplicated SAM in children 6-59 months of age. To do so, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a cluster-randomized trial of treatment for newly-diagnosed uncomplicated SAM in northwestern Nigeria (clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT03140904). We collected empirical costing data from enrollment up to 3 months post-discharge. We quantified health outcomes as the fraction of children recovered at discharge (primary cost-effectiveness outcome), the fraction recovered 3 months post-discharge, and total DALYs due to acute malnutrition. We estimated cost-effectiveness from both provider and societal perspectives. Costs are reported in 2019 US dollars. Provider costs per child were $67.07 (95% confidence interval: $64.79, $69.29) under standard-of-care, and $78.74 ($77.06, $80.66) under monthly follow-up. Patient costs per child were $21.04 ($18.18, $23.51) under standard-of-care, and $14.16 ($12.79, $15.25) under monthly follow-up. Monthly follow-up performed worse than standard-of-care for each health outcome assessed and was dominated (produced worse health outcomes at higher cost) by the standard-of-care in cost-effectiveness analyses. This result was robust to statistical uncertainty and to alternative costing assumptions. These findings provide evidence against monthly follow-up for treatment of uncomplicated SAM in situations where weekly follow-up of patients is feasible. While monthly follow-up may reduce burdens on caregivers and providers, other approaches are needed to do so while maintaining the effectiveness of care.

Valuing Healthcare Goods and Services: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the WTA-WTP Disparity

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to review the available evidence on the disparity between willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) for healthcare goods and services.

METHODS

A tiered approach consisting of (1) a systematic review, (2) an aggregate data meta-analysis, and (3) an individual participant data meta-analysis was used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Scisearch, and Econlit were searched for articles reporting both WTA and WTP for healthcare goods and services. Individual participant data were requested from the authors of the included studies.

RESULTS

Thirteen papers, reporting WTA and WTP from 19 experiments/subgroups, were included in the review. The WTA/WTP ratios reported in these papers, varied from 0.60 to 4.01, with means of 1.73 (median 1.31) for 15 estimates of the mean and 1.58 (median 1.00) for nine estimates of the median. Individual data obtained from six papers, covering 71.2% of the subjects included in the review, yielded an unadjusted WTA/WTP ratio of 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.52-2.28) and a WTA/WTP ratio adjusted for age, sex, and income of 1.70 (95% confidence interval 1.42-2.02). Income category and age had a statistically significant effect on the WTA/WTP ratio. The approach to handling zero WTA and WTP values has a considerable impact on the WTA/WTP ratio found.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study imply that losses in healthcare goods and services are valued differently from gains (ratio > 1), but that the degree of disparity found depends on the method used to obtain the WTA/WTP ratio, including the approach to zero responses. Irrespective of the method used, the ratios found in our meta-analysis are smaller than the ratios found in previous meta-analyses.

A Non-inferiority Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional decision rules have limitations when a new technology is less effective and less costly than a comparator. We propose a new probabilistic decision framework to examine non-inferiority in effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) simultaneously. We illustrate this framework using the example of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression.

METHODS

We modeled the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the new intervention (rTMS), an active control (ECT), and a placebo control, and we estimated the fraction of effectiveness preserved by the new intervention through probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). We then assessed the probability of cost-effectiveness using a traditional cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and our new decision-making framework. In our new framework, we considered the new intervention cost-effective in each simulation of the PSA if it preserved at least 75 percent of the effectiveness of the active control (thus demonstrating non-inferiority) and had a positive NMB at a given willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP).

RESULTS

rTMS was less effective (i.e., associated with fewer QALYs) and less costly than ECT. The traditional CEAC approach showed that the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were 100 percent, 39 percent, and 14 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In the new decision framework, the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were reduced to 23 percent, 21 percent, and 13 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework provides a different perspective for decision making with considerations of both non-inferiority and WTP thresholds.

The Case for Resource Sensitivity: Why It Is Ethical to Provide Cheaper, Less Effective Treatments in Global Health

When Dr. Hortense screens her patients in Chicago for cervical dysplasia and cancer, she conducts a pelvic exam, takes a sample of cervical cells, and sends them for Pap cytology and human papilloma virus DNA co-testing. But when she conducts cervical cancer screening in Botswana, she employs a much simpler diagnostic strategy. She applies acetic acid to highlight precancerous lesions and visually inspects the cervix-a technique known as the VIA (visual inspection with acetic acid) method. She treats suspicious lesions with cryotherapy. There are multiple reasons that Dr. Hortense uses VIA in developing countries. It requires no specialized laboratory facilities or highly trained personnel. With immediate results, there is no delay in diagnosis and treatment, ensuring that patients are not lost to follow-up. Most importantly, VIA is considerably cheaper than Pap and HPV co-testing. This difference in care between Chicago and Botswana presents an ethical dilemma in global health: is it ethically acceptable to provide some patients cheaper treatments that are less effective or more toxic than the treatments other patients receive? We argue that it is ethical to consider local resource constraints when deciding what interventions to provide. The provision of cheaper, less effective health care is frequently the most effective way of promoting health and realizing the ethical values of utility, equality, and priority to the worst off.

A NEW HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR DEVICES: THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to review 5 years of activity from a new system devised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), for assessing medical devices and diagnostics aimed at identifying and speeding adoption of technologies with clinical and cost advantages, compared with current practice in the United Kingdom healthcare system.

METHODS

All eligible notified technologies were classified using the Food and Drug Administration and Global Medical Device Nomenclature nomenclatures. Decisions about selecting technologies for full assessment to produce NICE recommendations were reviewed, along with the reasons given to companies for not selecting products.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2014, 186 technologies were notified (46 percent therapeutic and 54 percent diagnostic). Thirty-nine were judged ineligible (no regulatory approval), and 147 were considered by an independent committee. Of these, eighty (54 percent) were not selected for full assessment, most commonly because of insufficient evidence (86 percent): there were uncertainties specifically about benefits to the health service (54 percent), to patients (39 percent), and about cost (24 percent). The remaining 67 were selected and assessed for Medical Technology guidance (52 percent) (noninferior and/or lower cost consequences than current practice), for Diagnostics guidance (43 percent) or other NICE recommendations about adoption and use. Classifying technologies by two different systems showed no selection bias for any technology type or disease area.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying new or under-used devices and diagnostics with potential benefits and promoting their adoption is important to health services in the United Kingdom and worldwide. This new system offers a means of fostering both uptake and further research. Lack of research data on new products is a major obstacle to evaluation.

Rethinking cost-effectiveness in the era of zero healthcare spending growth

Background

The global economic crisis imposes severe restrictions on healthcare budgets, limiting the coverage of new interventions, even when they are cost-effective. Our objective was to develop a tool that can assist decision-makers in comparing the impact of medical intervention alternatives on the entire target population, under a pre-specified budget constraint.

Methods

We illustrated the tool by using a target population of 1,000 patients, and a budget constraint of $1,000,000. We compared two intervention alternatives: the current practice that costs $1,000 and adds 0.5 quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) per patient and a new technology that costs 100 % more, and provides 20 % more QALYs per patient. We also developed a formula for defining the maximum premium price for a higher-cost/higher-effectiveness intervention that can justify its adoption under a constrained budget.

Results

Using the new therapy will add 300 QALYs, compared to 500 QALYS when using the lower-cost, lower-effective intervention, despite a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $10,000. The maximum price for the higher-efficacy therapy that will preserve the target population outcomes is 20 % higher than the lower-cost therapy.

Conclusions

Although an intervention associated with higher costs and higher efficacy may have an acceptable ICER, it could provide inferior outcomes in the target population under budget constraints, depending on the relative effectiveness and costs of the interventions. The cost premium that can be justified for a higher-efficacy intervention is directly correlated to its effectiveness premium. Using the proposed tool may assist decision-makers in improving overall healthcare outcomes, especially in times of economic downturn.

Caveat emptor NICE: biased use of cost-effectiveness is inefficient and inequitable

Concern with the threshold applied in cost-effectiveness analyses by bodies such as NICE distracts attention from their biased use of the principle. The bias results from the prior requirement that an intervention be effective (usually 'clinically effective') before its cost-effectiveness is considered. The underlying justification for the use of cost-effectiveness as a criterion, whatever the threshold adopted, is that decisions in a resource-constrained system have opportunity costs. Their existence rules out any restriction to those interventions that are 'incrementally cost-effective' at a chosen threshold and requires acceptance of those that are 'decrementally cost-effective' at the same threshold. Interventions that fall under the linear ICER line in the South-West quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane are cost-effective because they create net health benefits, as do those in the North-East quadrant. If there is objection to the fact that they are cost-effective by reducing effectiveness as well as costs, it is possible to reject them, but only on policy grounds other than their failure to be cost-effective. Having established this, the paper considers and seeks to counter the arguments based on these other grounds. Most notably these include those proposing a different threshold in the South-West quadrant from the North-East one, i.e. propose a 'kinked ICER'. Another undesirable consequence of the biased use of cost-effectiveness is the failure to stimulate innovations that would increase overall health gain by being less effective in the condition concerned, but generate more benefits elsewhere. NICE can only reward innovations that cost more.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Economic evaluation of DNA ploidy analysis vs liquid-based cytology for cervical screening

Background:

DNA ploidy analysis involves automated quantification of chromosomal aneuploidy, a potential marker of progression toward cervical carcinoma. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this method for cervical screening, comparing five ploidy strategies (using different numbers of aneuploid cells as cut points) with liquid-based Papanicolaou smear and no screening.

Methods:

A state-transition Markov model simulated the natural history of HPV infection and possible progression into cervical neoplasia in a cohort of 12-year-old females. The analysis evaluated cost in 2012 US$ and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a health-system perspective throughout a lifetime horizon in the US setting. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the best strategy. The robustness of optimal choices was examined in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

In the base-case analysis, the ploidy 4 cell strategy was cost-effective, yielding an increase of 0.032 QALY and an ICER of $18 264/QALY compared to no screening. For most scenarios in the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the ploidy 4 cell strategy was the only cost-effective strategy. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that this strategy was more likely to be cost-effective than the Papanicolaou smear.

Conclusion:

Compared to the liquid-based Papanicolaou smear, screening with a DNA ploidy strategy appeared less costly and comparably effective.

Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine

There is a need for methodological scrutiny in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. In this article, we present a list of 10 specific issues that we argue pose specific methodological challenges that require careful consideration when designing and conducting robust model-based economic evaluations in the context of personalized medicine. Key issues are related to the correct framing of the research question, interpretation of test results, data collection of medical management options after obtaining test results, and expressing the value of tests. The need to formulate the research question clearly and be explicit and specific about the technology being evaluated is essential because various test kits can have the same purpose and yet differ in predictive value, costs, and relevance to practice and patient populations. The correct reporting of sensitivity/specificity, and especially the false negatives and false positives (which are population dependent), of the investigated tests is also considered as a key element. This requires additional structural complexity to establish the relationship between the test result and the consecutive treatment changes and outcomes. This process involves translating the test characteristics into clinical utility, and therefore outlining the clinical and economic consequences of true and false positives and true and false negatives. Information on treatment patterns and on their costs and outcomes, however, is often lacking, especially for false-positive and false-negative test results. The analysis can even become very complex if different tests are combined or sequentially used. This potential complexity can be handled by explicitly showing how these tests are going to be used in practice and then working with the combined sensitivities and specificities of the tests. Each of these issues leads to a higher degree of uncertainty in economic models designed to assess the added value of personalized medicine compared with their simple pharmaceutical counterparts. To some extent, these problems can be overcome by performing early population-level simulations, which can lead to the identification and collection of data on critical input parameters. Finally, it is important to understand that a test strategy does not necessarily lead to more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). It is possible that the test will lead to not only fewer QALYs but also fewer costs, which can be defined as "decremental" cost per QALYs. Different decision criteria are needed to interpret such results.

Individualized strategy for dosing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists for androgen-independent prostate cancer: identification of outcomes and costs

PURPOSE

Continuing androgen suppression is the current standard in men with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC). An individualized strategy, wherein luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LH-RHas) are redosed when serum testosterone approaches a non-castrate level, may decrease costs without worsening outcomes. To understand possible outcomes, we performed a cost-utility analysis comparing individualized and fixed LH-RHa dosing strategies in men with AIPC.

METHODS

The model used a societal perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and 3% annual cost discounting. The model accounted for direct costs of androgen suppression. Utilities were varied in accordance with published preference data.

RESULTS

Under base-case assumptions, individualized LH-RHa dosing yielded 1.089 expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), compared with 1.094 expected QALYs for fixed LH-RHa dosing. In cost analysis, lifetime per-patient costs for androgen suppression were estimated to be $5,694 for individualized LH-RHa dosing and $9,157 for fixed LH-RHa dosing. Applied to the total population, a strategy of individualized LH-RHa dosing would cost $170 million for androgen suppression, compared with $274 million for fixed LH-RHa dosing. Under these assumptions, adopting the individualized strategy resulted in $692,600 gained from a societal perspective for each QALY lost (the decremental cost utility).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that an individualized LH-RHa dosing strategy would be associated with moderate savings on an individual basis but substantial savings on a population basis, and would not adversely affect quality of life or life expectancy. Further research is needed to establish the effects of this strategy on symptoms and survival, as well as patient satisfaction and true costs.

Ethical considerations of clinical trials in the developing world

The developing world is entering new territory with rapid advancements in biomedical research and science. In order to ensure the protection of those most vulnerable, bioethics must experience a similar expansion and progression worldwide. Inequalities in healthcare remain an influential issue to redress on a global scale, and may provide an opportunity to induce a paradigm shift in the worldwide approach to medical research. In particular, clinical trials performed in a nation different to that of the sponsoring institution must appreciate any underlying ethical conflict and ensure that the volunteers involved are treated with the best attainable and sustainable standards.

Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis

Clinical journals increasingly illustrate uncertainty about the cost and effect of health care interventions using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). CEACs present the probability that each competing alternative is optimal for a range of values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. The objective of this article is to demonstrate the limitations of CEACs for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. These limitations arise because the CEAC is unable to distinguish dramatically different joint distributions of incremental cost and effect. A CEAC is not sensitive to any change of the incremental joint distribution in the upper left and lower right quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane; neither is it sensitive to radial shift of the incremental joint distribution in the upper right and lower left quadrants. As a result, CEACs are ambiguous to risk-averse policy makers, inhibit integration with risk attitude, hamper synthesis with other evidence or opinions, and are unhelpful to assess the need for more research. Moreover, CEACs may mislead policy makers and can incorrectly suggest medical importance. Both for guiding immediate decisions and for prioritizing future research, these considerable drawbacks of CEACs should make us rethink their use in communicating uncertainty. As opposed to CEACs, confidence and credible intervals do not conflate magnitude and precision of the net benefit of health care interventions. Therefore, they allow (in)formal synthesis of study results with risk attitude and other evidence or opinions. Presenting the value of information in addition to these intervals allows policy makers to evaluate the need for more empirical research.

Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: a patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis

Many countries now use health technology assessment (HTA) to review new and emerging technologies, especially with regard to reimbursement, pricing and/or clinical guidelines. One of the common, but not universal, features of these systems is the use of economic evaluation, normally cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), to confirm that new technologies offer value for money. Many have criticised these systems as primarily being concerned with cost containment, rather than advancing the interests of patients or innovators. This paper calls into question the underlying principles of CEA by arguing that value in the healthcare system may in fact be unconstrained. It is suggested that 'lean management principles' can be used not only to trim waste from the health system, but as a method of creating real incentives for innovation and value creation. Following the lean paradigm, this value must be defined purely from the patients' perspective, and the entire health system needs to work towards the creation of such value. This paper offers as a practical example a lean approach to HTA, arguing that such an approach would lead to better incentives for innovation in health, as well as more patient-friendly outcomes in the long run.

Implantable or external defibrillators for individuals at increased risk of cardiac arrest: where cost-effectiveness hits fiscal reality

OBJECTIVES

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are highly effective at preventing cardiac arrest, but their availability is limited by high cost. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are likely to be less effective, but also less expensive. We used decision analysis to evaluate the clinical and economic trade-offs of AEDs, ICDs, and emergency medical services equipped with defibrillators (EMS-D) for reducing cardiac arrest mortality.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies in adults meeting entry criteria for the MADIT II Trial: strategy 1, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated by EMS-D; strategy 2, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated with an in-home AED; and strategy 3, individuals receive a prophylactic ICD. The model was then used to quantify the aggregate societal benefit of these three strategies under the conditions of a constrained federal budget.

RESULTS

Compared with EMS-D, in-home AEDs produced a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $5225 ($104,500 per QALY), while ICDs produced a gain of 0.90 QALYs at a cost of $114,660 ($127,400 per QALY). For every $1 million spent on defibrillators, 1.7 additional QALYs are produced by purchasing AEDs (9.6 QALYs/$million) instead of ICDs (7.9 QALYs/$million). Results were most sensitive to defibrillator complication rates and effectiveness, defibrillator cost, and adults' risk of cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

Both AEDs and ICDs reduce cardiac arrest mortality, but AEDs are significantly less expensive and less effective. If financial constraints were to lead to rationing of defibrillators, it might be preferable to provide more people with a less effective and less expensive intervention (in-home AEDs) instead of providing fewer people with a more effective and more costly intervention (ICDs).

Economic analysis in hand surgery

Economic analysis is a method for allocating resources among competing alternatives. Four techniques commonly used in an economic analysis are cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-utility analysis. These analyses provide information to guide medical decisions and to set funding priorities. Understanding the differences between the techniques allows for better decision making. Although economic analysis is used widely in other fields of medicine, its use in studies of disorders of the hand has been sparse. Only recently has economic analysis been included in studies focused on the care of the upper-extremity patient. As such, to interpret the results of these studies better, hand surgeons need to understand the similarities and differences and the strengths and weaknesses of the different techniques. Such an understanding will allow hand surgeons to know when economic analyses are comparable. Furthermore it will aid them in providing their patients not only medically sound care, but also economically efficient care. This article provides a synopsis of the most widely used and accepted techniques for performing an economic analysis. The key concepts of each of the 4 techniques are shown by using the small number of studies that are available in the upper-extremity literature.