11.07.2015 Views

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

pdf [5.3MB] - Department of Families, Housing, Community Services

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

FIGURE 3-4: COST EFFECTIVENESS CHARTSCostEffectivenessFor the remaining two quadrants (yellow and green in Figure 3-4) cost effectiveconsiderations need to be made for assessment. In the green area, alternative scenarios areboth more costly and more effective and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) isthe gradient between the two points i.e. the cost <strong>of</strong> gaining an additional unit <strong>of</strong> effectiveness(e.g. cost per QALY gained or DALY averted). For scenarios in the yellow area, theterminology is a little different, as these points represent lower effectiveness and lower costs;they are referred to as the compensation for the loss <strong>of</strong> a unit <strong>of</strong> effectiveness.The ICER is the defining measure <strong>of</strong> these economic evaluation techniques. Commonbenchmarks are used to determine whether an intervention is acceptable on a costeffectiveness basis. A number <strong>of</strong> different thresholds are used to determine the acceptability<strong>of</strong> an intervention. For example, the <strong>Department</strong> <strong>of</strong> Health and Ageing has in the pastindicated a threshold ICER value <strong>of</strong> $60,000 per life year saved as a guide for its decisionprocess (DHA, 2003). The WHO describes ‘cost effective’ interventions as ones that costone to three times GDP per capita (in Australia roughly A$49,000 to A$147,000) per DALYavoided; and ‘very cost effective’ interventions as ones that cost less than GDP per capita($49,000) per DALY avoided in 2008.Results from a CBA are examined in a slightly different manner. As outcomes are measuredin monetary terms these benefits can be compared against the costs (or outlays) from theprogram. A common metric for a CBA is achieving a positive net benefit in NPV terms, overa defined time horizon. Other measures such as the BCR are used, where a value greaterthan one represents a greater proportion <strong>of</strong> benefits arising from the costs. Alternatively areturn on investment (ROI) is used where a value greater than zero (the breakeven point)represents an excess <strong>of</strong> benefits resulting from the intervention.100

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!