What is an example of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)?

What is an example of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)?

• A. Comparing costs of Drug A and Drug B, which have evidence of equal efficacy for a given condition and safety (e.g., incidence of ADRs)
• B. Comparing chemotherapy regimens
• C. Clinical pharmacy service vs. other institutional service
• D. Osteoporosis Drug A versus Drug B on fracture risk reduction ($/fracture avoided)

Answer: (D)

Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates value by linking the costs of an intervention to a health outcome. It expresses what a given health benefit costs, often as a ratio, such as cost per unit of outcome. The example that fits this approach is comparing osteoporosis drugs in terms of cost per fracture avoided. Here, the outcome is a meaningful clinical result (fractures prevented), and the costs are tied to achieving that outcome. This yields a direct metric—how much money is spent for each fracture prevented—which allows for comparing value across options and, if desired, calculating the incremental cost per additional fracture avoided when one option provides more benefit but at higher cost. In the other scenarios, the comparison centers on costs without a defined health outcome or assumes equal effectiveness, which doesn’t directly measure value per health outcome. When outcomes are stated as equal, the analysis tends toward simply choosing the cheaper option (cost minimization) rather than assessing value per health benefit. Without tying costs to a specific health outcome or forming a ratio of cost to outcome, it isn’t a true cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluates value by linking the costs of an intervention to a health outcome. It expresses what a given health benefit costs, often as a ratio, such as cost per unit of outcome.

The example that fits this approach is comparing osteoporosis drugs in terms of cost per fracture avoided. Here, the outcome is a meaningful clinical result (fractures prevented), and the costs are tied to achieving that outcome. This yields a direct metric—how much money is spent for each fracture prevented—which allows for comparing value across options and, if desired, calculating the incremental cost per additional fracture avoided when one option provides more benefit but at higher cost.

In the other scenarios, the comparison centers on costs without a defined health outcome or assumes equal effectiveness, which doesn’t directly measure value per health outcome. When outcomes are stated as equal, the analysis tends toward simply choosing the cheaper option (cost minimization) rather than assessing value per health benefit. Without tying costs to a specific health outcome or forming a ratio of cost to outcome, it isn’t a true cost-effectiveness analysis.