-
British Medical Journal Oct 1964
Topics: Economics, Medical; Family Practice; General Practice; Health Occupations; Humans; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 14185674
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5414.946-c -
Anesthesiology 1957
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Economics, Medical; Humans
PubMed: 13411627
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-195703000-00033 -
British Medical Journal Sep 1964
Topics: Economics, Medical; Family Practice; General Practice; Referral and Consultation; Specialization; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 14172044
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5411.753 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 1995
Topics: Economics; Economics, Medical; Health Policy; Humans; Policy Making; United Kingdom
PubMed: 7613306
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.6996.1 -
British Medical Journal Nov 1977
Topics: Economics, Medical; General Surgery; Humans; United Kingdom
PubMed: 589120
DOI: No ID Found -
British Medical Journal (Clinical... Mar 1984
Topics: Aged; Economics, Hospital; Economics, Medical; Humans; Medicare; Medicine; United States
PubMed: 6423160
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.288.6422.956 -
British Medical Journal Nov 1976
Topics: Economics, Medical; England; Family Practice; Medical Staff, Hospital; State Medicine
PubMed: 1000191
DOI: No ID Found -
British Medical Journal Jun 1980
Topics: Economics, Medical; Medical Audit; Physicians; Societies, Medical; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 7388560
DOI: No ID Found -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Sep 2019Within health economic studies, it is often necessary to adjust costs obtained from different time periods for inflation. Nevertheless, many studies do not report the...
OBJECTIVES
Within health economic studies, it is often necessary to adjust costs obtained from different time periods for inflation. Nevertheless, many studies do not report the methods used for this in sufficient detail. In this article, we outline the principal methods used to adjust for inflation, with a focus on studies relating to healthcare interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We also discuss issues relating to converting local currencies to international dollars and US$ and adjusting cost data collected from other countries or previous studies.
METHODS
We outlined the 3 main methods used to adjust for inflation for studies in these settings: exchanging the local currency to US$ or international dollars and then inflating using US inflation rates (method 1); inflating the local currency using local inflation rates and then exchanging to US$ or international dollars (method 2); splitting the costs into tradable and nontradable resources and using method 1 on the tradable resources and method 2 on the nontradable resources (method 3).
RESULTS
In a hypothetical example of adjusting a cost of US$100 incurred in Vietnam from 2006 to 2016 prices, the adjusted cost from the 3 methods were US$116.84, US$172.09, and US$161.04, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The different methods for adjusting for inflation can yield substantially different results. We make recommendations regarding the most appropriate method for various scenarios. Moving forward, it is vital that studies report the methodology they use to adjust for inflation more transparently.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Developing Countries; Economics, Medical; Health Expenditures; Humans; Inflation, Economic
PubMed: 31511179
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.021 -
Clinical Therapeutics Apr 2013Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote...
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Topics: Economics, Medical; Publishing
PubMed: 23537754
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.03.003