Why cost-effectiveness thresholds for global health donors differ from thresholds for Ministries of Health (and why it matters)

Drake, Tom and Chi, Y-Ling and Morton, Alec and Pitt, Catherine (2023) Why cost-effectiveness thresholds for global health donors differ from thresholds for Ministries of Health (and why it matters). F1000Research, 12. 214. ISSN 2046-1402 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.131230.1)

[thumbnail of Drake-etal-F1000Research-2023-Why-cost-effectiveness-thresholds-for-global-health]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Drake_etal_F1000Research_2023_Why_cost_effectiveness_thresholds_for_global_health.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (637kB)| Preview

Abstract

Healthcare cost-effectiveness analysis is increasingly used to inform priority-setting in low- and middle-income countries and by global health donors. As part of such analyses, cost-effectiveness thresholds are commonly used to determine what is, or is not, cost-effective. Recent years have seen a shift in best practice from a rule-of-thumb 1x or 3x per capita GDP threshold towards using thresholds that, in theory, reflect the opportunity cost of new investments within a given country. In this paper, we observe that international donors face both different resource constraints and opportunity costs compared to national decision makers. Hence, their perspective on cost-effectiveness thresholds must be different. We discuss the potential implications of distinguishing between national and donor thresholds and outline broad options for how to approach setting a donor-perspective threshold. Further work is needed to clarify healthcare cost-effectiveness threshold theory in the context of international aid and to develop practical policy frameworks for implementation.

ORCID iDs

Drake, Tom, Chi, Y-Ling, Morton, Alec ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3803-8517 and Pitt, Catherine;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)