Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR)

In the ever-evolving landscape of healthcare, the imperative to deliver cost-effective and quality care is paramount. Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) emerges as a critical field that bridges the gap between clinical research and practical healthcare decision-making.

At its core, HEOR evaluates the value of healthcare services and interventions, aiming to understand their impact on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. This multidisciplinary approach incorporates elements from economics, epidemiology, and statistics to inform policy decisions, clinical guidelines, and resource allocation.

By quantifying the outcomes and costs associated with healthcare interventions, HEOR provides a framework for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare systems, guiding stakeholders towards more informed and equitable healthcare decisions.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you for Signing Up

Please correct the marked field(s) below.

1,true,6,Kişi E-postası,2

The objective of this article is to delve into the intricacies of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) within the context of Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR). I aim to elucidate the methodology behind calculating ICER, discuss its critical role in healthcare decision-making, and explore the ethical, policy, and practical implications of its application in the healthcare sector.

Through a comprehensive examination of ICER, this article seeks to highlight its importance in promoting cost-effective healthcare interventions, ultimately contributing to more sustainable healthcare systems and improved patient outcomes.

By providing insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with the use of ICER in HEOR, we endeavor to inform and enrich the dialogue among healthcare professionals, policymakers, and stakeholders on the value of medical interventions.

You can find more market access and health economics resources from the category titled MA & HEOR Resources.

What is Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)?

Central to the economic evaluations within HEOR is the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), a crucial metric that compares the relative costs and outcomes of different healthcare interventions. ICER is defined as the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effectiveness.

Essentially, it provides a numerical value that represents the additional cost required to gain one additional unit of effect, such as a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or life years gained. This ratio is pivotal for assessing the value of medical interventions and guiding healthcare policymakers, providers, and payers

in making evidence-based decisions that optimize the allocation of limited healthcare resources. The significance of ICER lies in its ability to provide a standardized metric for comparing the cost-effectiveness of diverse healthcare interventions, thereby facilitating a more objective evaluation of their relative value.

As healthcare costs continue to rise and the demand for new and innovative treatments increases, the role of ICER in HEOR becomes increasingly vital. It serves as a fundamental tool in the assessment of new medical technologies, treatments, and programs, ensuring that healthcare spending is directed towards interventions that offer the greatest benefit in terms of patient outcomes and cost-efficiency.

Fundamentals of ICER

Definition

The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is a metric used in health economics to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a healthcare intervention compared to an alternative (often the standard of care). It is calculated as the difference in costs between two interventions divided by the difference in their effectiveness. The formula for ICER can be expressed as:

Components of ICER

The two primary components of ICER are incremental costs and incremental effectiveness:

• Incremental Costs ($\Delta C$): This refers to the additional cost associated with implementing the new healthcare intervention compared to the alternative. It includes all relevant costs, such as those related to treatment, side effects, follow-up care, and any cost savings from avoided healthcare use due to improved health outcomes.
• Incremental Effectiveness ($\Delta E$): This is the difference in health outcomes achieved by the new intervention compared to the alternative. Effectiveness can be quantified using various measures, depending on the intervention’s goals and the disease area. Common measures include QALYs, life years gained, decrease in disease incidence, or improvement in symptom severity.

Interpretation of ICER in Decision-Making

ICER values provide a quantitative basis for comparing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The interpretation of ICER values is crucial in healthcare decision-making, particularly in resource allocation and policy formulation:

• Cost-Effective Threshold: Many health systems and payers use predetermined cost-effectiveness thresholds to decide whether an intervention is considered cost-effective. For example, if an intervention’s ICER is below a certain threshold (e.g., $50,000 per QALY gained in some countries), it may be deemed cost-effective and thus worth funding.
• Relative Value: ICER values offer insight into the relative value of new interventions by comparing their additional costs to their additional benefits. This helps decision-makers prioritize interventions that provide the most health benefit per unit of cost.
• Decision Context: The interpretation of ICER also depends on the context, including the disease area, availability of alternative treatments, and societal willingness to pay for health gains. High ICER values may be acceptable in situations where no effective alternatives exist or in diseases with high societal burden.

ICER plays a pivotal role in the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions, guiding stakeholders in making informed choices about which interventions to adopt, reimburse, or prioritize.

By systematically comparing the costs and outcomes of different healthcare options, ICER helps to ensure that limited healthcare resources are used in a way that maximizes health benefits for the population.

Methodological Considerations for ICER

Study Designs

The calculation of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is integral to several study designs within health economics, primarily:

• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA): This approach compares the costs and health outcomes of two or more interventions. It measures outcomes in natural units, such as life years gained or cases prevented. CEA is widely used in healthcare to identify which interventions provide the best value for money.
• Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA): CUA is a subtype of CEA that measures outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. This allows for the comparison of interventions across different disease areas by standardizing outcomes to a common metric that considers both the quality and quantity of life.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA): Although not directly used to calculate ICER, CBA is another economic evaluation technique where both costs and benefits are quantified in monetary terms. It can provide context or supplementary information to analyses involving ICER.

Data Sources

The estimation of costs and effectiveness in ICER analyses relies on diverse data sources, each offering unique insights and challenges:

• Clinical Trials: These are a primary source of data for effectiveness outcomes. They provide controlled environments to measure the direct impacts of interventions on health outcomes, though they may not always capture long-term effects or real-world variability.
• Observational Studies: Such studies can offer data on real-world effectiveness and costs, incorporating a wider population and more varied clinical settings than clinical trials. However, they may be subject to biases due to the non-randomized nature of data collection.
• Registries and Databases: Patient registries and healthcare databases are valuable for accessing large, longitudinal data on real-world use, effectiveness, and costs of interventions. They are particularly useful for chronic diseases and conditions requiring long-term treatment.
• Expert Opinions: In the absence of direct data, expert opinions can be used to estimate parameters for ICER calculations. These are often used in model-based analyses and need to be approached with caution due to potential biases.

Analytical Techniques

The calculation and interpretation of ICER involve several analytical techniques to ensure accuracy and relevance:

• Decision Analytic Modeling: This encompasses a range of models (such as Markov models, decision trees, and simulation models) that synthesize data from various sources to estimate costs and outcomes over time. These models can incorporate the progression of diseases, patient preferences, and varying healthcare practices to simulate real-world scenarios.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Given the uncertainties inherent in economic evaluations, sensitivity analyses are crucial. They assess how changes in key parameters (e.g., cost estimates, effectiveness outcomes, discount rates) impact the ICER. Both one-way (varying one parameter at a time) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (varying all parameters simultaneously based on distributions) are used to explore the robustness of the ICER results.
• Threshold Analysis: This method involves identifying the specific value of a parameter at which an intervention becomes cost-effective under a given willingness-to-pay threshold. It is particularly useful in informing policy decisions and setting priorities in resource allocation.

Together, these methodological considerations form the backbone of ICER analyses, ensuring that the resulting ratios are robust, relevant, and reflective of real-world healthcare scenarios. Through careful selection of study designs, data sources, and analytical techniques, researchers can provide meaningful insights into the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions, guiding decision-makers in optimizing healthcare outcomes within the constraints of available resources.

Case Studies

ICER has been applied across a wide range of healthcare interventions, demonstrating its versatility and critical role in HEOR. Here are a few examples:

• Novel Drug Therapies: ICER has been extensively used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals. For instance, the evaluation of hepatitis C antiviral drugs compared to previous standard treatments revealed that, despite high upfront costs, these drugs were cost-effective over the long term due to their superior effectiveness in curing the disease and preventing costly complications.
• Public Health Interventions: ICER analyses have assessed the value of public health campaigns and interventions, such as smoking cessation programs or vaccination campaigns. An example is the use of ICER in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination programs in preventing cervical cancer, guiding decisions on funding and implementation in national health services.
• Medical Devices and Technology: The introduction of new medical devices, such as wearable heart monitors or advanced imaging technology, often undergoes ICER evaluation to determine their cost-effectiveness relative to standard care. For instance, the use of ICER to assess the introduction of new, minimally invasive surgical technologies that offer quicker recovery times and reduced hospital stays.

Application of ICER in HEOR

Decision-Making

ICER plays a pivotal role in healthcare policy and clinical decision-making by providing a quantitative measure of value for medical interventions. This is particularly important in contexts where healthcare resources are limited, and decisions must be made about which interventions to fund:

• Threshold Values for Cost-Effectiveness: Many countries and health organizations set threshold values for ICER, below which an intervention is considered cost-effective. These thresholds vary significantly, reflecting differences in willingness to pay for health gains. For example, the World Health Organization suggests a threshold of 1-3 times the GDP per capita per QALY gained as a benchmark for cost-effectiveness, though actual thresholds used in practice can vary widely between countries.
• Prioritization of Healthcare Interventions: ICER aids in prioritizing healthcare interventions, ensuring that resources are allocated to treatments that offer the most significant health benefits relative to their costs. This is especially crucial in public health policy, where decisions affect the allocation of finite resources across populations.

Challenges and Controversies

Calculating ICER comes with its set of challenges and controversies, including:

• Uncertainty in Estimates: The inputs used to calculate ICER, such as cost and effectiveness data, can be subject to significant uncertainty. This might be due to variability in clinical trial outcomes, differences in healthcare settings, or long-term effects that are difficult to predict. Sensitivity analyses are critical for assessing how uncertainties affect ICER values.
• Variability in Willingness-to-Pay Thresholds: There is no universally agreed-upon threshold for what constitutes a cost-effective intervention, leading to debates over which thresholds should be used in different contexts. Variability in these thresholds can lead to inconsistencies in which interventions are considered cost-effective.
• Ethical and Equity Considerations: The use of ICER in decision-making raises ethical questions, particularly around the valuation of life years and the potential for discrimination against certain groups, such as the elderly or those with disabilities. There is ongoing debate about how to incorporate equity considerations into ICER analyses.

Despite these challenges, ICER remains a fundamental tool in HEOR for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. It facilitates informed decision-making that strives to balance the competing demands of efficacy, cost, and ethical considerations in healthcare provision.

Ethical and Policy Implications of ICER

Equity Considerations

The use of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) in healthcare decision-making raises several ethical considerations, particularly concerning equity and access. At the heart of these concerns is the question of whether decisions based on ICER might prioritize cost-efficiency over the needs of individual patients, especially those belonging to vulnerable populations.

• Access to Care: There’s a concern that strict adherence to ICER thresholds could limit access to high-cost treatments for rare or severe conditions, potentially disadvantaging patients who might benefit from such interventions. This raises the question of how to balance the goal of maximizing population health with the need to provide care that caters to individual patient needs.
• Age and Disability Bias: ICER analyses typically value interventions based on their ability to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which can inadvertently favor treatments that benefit younger over older individuals, or those without disabilities over those with. This has sparked debates on how to adjust ICER calculations to reflect societal values around equity and the worth of all individuals’ lives.
• Societal Willingness to Pay: The ethical implications of ICER also extend to societal values and the willingness to pay for health gains. The choice of threshold values reflects societal preferences about the importance of health relative to other goods and services, which can vary significantly across different cultures and societies.

Policy Impact

ICER has a profound impact on healthcare policy, influencing decisions that affect the allocation of resources, reimbursement of treatments, and priority setting within health systems.

• Reimbursement Decisions: ICER is frequently used by health technology assessment agencies and insurance companies to inform reimbursement decisions. Interventions with ICER values below a predefined threshold are often considered for reimbursement, while those above the threshold may require further justification or negotiation. This process aims to ensure that funded treatments offer value for money and contribute to the efficient use of healthcare resources.
• Priority Setting: In the context of limited healthcare budgets, ICER helps policymakers prioritize interventions that offer the most significant health improvements per unit of cost. This is particularly relevant in public health decisions, where choosing between competing health interventions is a constant challenge. By providing a systematic approach to evaluating cost-effectiveness, ICER facilitates more transparent and rational priority setting.
• Guideline Development: ICER analyses contribute to the development of clinical guidelines by identifying cost-effective interventions that should be recommended practices. This ensures that clinical guidelines not only reflect the best available evidence on clinical effectiveness but also consider the economic value of different treatment options.

The integration of ICER into healthcare policy must be approached with a balance between economic efficiency and ethical considerations, ensuring that policies not only strive for cost-effectiveness but also reflect societal values regarding equity and access to care. As such, the ongoing dialogue around ICER’s role in healthcare decision-making continues to evolve, reflecting the complex interplay between economics, ethics, and policy.

Summary of Key Points

This article explored the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) within the context of Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR), shedding light on its definition, components, and methodological underpinnings. ICER serves as a pivotal metric for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions, comparing the additional costs and effectiveness of new treatments relative to existing standards.

Through case studies and discussions, we highlighted ICER’s significant role in guiding healthcare policy, clinical decision-making, and resource allocation, while also addressing the ethical considerations and challenges inherent in its application.

Implications for Practice

For healthcare professionals and policymakers, understanding and applying ICER is crucial for making informed decisions that balance clinical benefits with economic considerations. The use of ICER can aid in the prioritization of interventions that offer the most substantial health benefits per unit of cost, ensuring the efficient allocation of limited healthcare resources.

Moreover, by incorporating ICER into healthcare policy and reimbursement decisions, stakeholders can strive towards more sustainable healthcare systems that deliver value-based care. However, it is essential to approach ICER analyses with a critical eye, considering the methodological challenges, ethical implications, and the need to ensure equity and access to care.

Future Research

The application of ICER in HEOR opens several avenues for further research:

• Methodological Advancements: Investigating new analytical techniques and models that can enhance the accuracy and relevance of ICER calculations, particularly in capturing long-term and real-world outcomes.
• Equity Adjustments: Developing methods to adjust ICER analyses for age, disability, and other factors to address equity considerations more comprehensively.
• Societal Willingness to Pay: Conducting research to better understand societal values and preferences regarding health gains, which can inform the setting of ICER thresholds in different contexts.
• Global Health Applications: Exploring the application and adaptation of ICER in low- and middle-income countries, where healthcare resources are often more constrained, and the need for cost-effective interventions is even more critical.

By continuing to refine ICER methodologies and addressing the complex ethical and policy implications of its use, researchers and practitioners can enhance the contribution of ICER to health economics and outcomes research, ultimately improving healthcare decision-making and outcomes on a global scale.

I would like to suggest the book titled “PHARMACOECONOMICS FROM CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE” which is focused on pharmaceuticals but may be helpful to understand ICER implementations and usage.

Güvenç Koçkaya, April 2024