Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: An Overview of Key Concepts, Recommendations, Controversies, and Pitfalls

Published:November 08, 2018DOI:
      The field of radiology has witnessed a burst of technological advances that improve diagnostic quality, reduce harm to patients, support clinical needs, and better serve larger more diverse patient populations. One of the critical challenges with these advances is proving that value outweighs the cost. The use of cutting-edge technology is often expensive, and the reality is that our society cannot afford all the screening and diagnostic tests that are being developed. At the societal level, we need tools to help us decide which health programs should be funded. Therefore, decision makers are increasingly looking toward scientific methods to compare health technologies in order to improve allocation of resources. One of such methods is cost-effectiveness analysis. In this article, we review key features of cost-effectiveness analysis and its specific issues as they relate to radiology.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • US News
        Health care will bankrupt the nation.
        (Available at:) (Accessed May 28, 2018)
        • Weinstein M.C.
        • Stason W.B.
        Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices.
        N Engl J Med. 1977; 296 (PubMed PMID: 402576): 716-721
        • Thokala P.
        • Ochalek J.
        • Leech A.A.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness thresholds: the past, the present and the future.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 36: 509-522
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Sanders G.D.
        • Russell L.B.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        Oxford University Press, 2017 (Kindle Edition)
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1495-1497
        • Kim D.D.
        • Wilkinson C.L.
        • Pope E.F.
        • et al.
        The influence of time horizon on results of cost-effectiveness analyses.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017; 17 (Epub May 23, 2017. PubMed PMID: 28504026): 615-623
        • Sonnenberg F.A.
        • Beck J.R.
        Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide.
        Med Decis Making. 1993; 13: 322-338
        • Weinstein M.C.
        • Siegel J.E.
        • Gold M.R.
        • et al.
        Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        JAMA. 1996; 276: 1253-1258
        • Sanders G.D.
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Basu A
        Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1093-1103
        • Sinclair S.
        How to avoid unfair discrimination against disabled patients in healthcare resource allocation.
        J Med Ethics. 2012; 38 (Epub December 3, 2011. PubMed PMID: 22138724): 158-162
        • Vallejo-Torres L.
        • García-Lorenzo B.
        • Castilla I.
        • et al.
        On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how?.
        Value Health. 2016; 19 (Epub April 23, 2016. Review. PubMed PMID: 27565273): 558-566
        • Ryen L.
        • Svensson M.
        The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature.
        Health Econ. 2015; 24 (Epub July 28, 2014. PubMed PMID: 25070495): 1289-1301
        • Hunink M.M.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        • Wittenberg E.
        • et al.
        Decision making in health and medicine: integrating evidence and values.
        Cambridge University Press, 2014
        • Russell L.B.
        • Gold M.R.
        • Siegel J.E.
        • et al.
        The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
        JAMA. 1996; 276 (Review. PubMed PMID: 8827972): 1172-1177
        • Zygmont M.E.
        • Lam D.L.
        • Nowitzki K.M.
        • et al.
        Opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research in radiology.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 8-17
        • Pandharipande P.V.
        • Gazelle G.S.
        Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology.
        Radiology. 2009; 253: 600-605
        • Pearson S.D.
        • Knudsen A.B.
        • Scherer R.W.
        • et al.
        Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2008; 27: 1503-1514
        • Stout N.K.
        • Knudsen A.B.
        • Kong C.Y.
        • et al.
        Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2009; 27: 533-545
        • Jain R.
        • Grabner M.
        • Onukwugha E.
        Sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness studies: from guidelines to practice.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2011; 29 (Review. PubMed PMID: 21395350): 297-314
        • Duong P.A.T.
        • Bresnahan B.
        • Pastel D.A.
        • et al.
        Value of imaging part I: perspectives for the academic radiologist.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 18-22
        • Deverka P.A.
        • Lavallee D.C.
        • Desai P.J.
        • et al.
        Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2012; 1: 181-194
        • Concannon T.W.
        • Fuster M.
        • Saunders T.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29: 1692-1701
        • Lee C.I.
        • Jarvik J.G.
        Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1156-1161
        • Price-Haywood E.G.
        Clinical comparative effectiveness research through the lens of healthcare decision makers.
        Ochsner J. 2015; 15: 154-161
        • Esmail L.
        • Moore E.
        • Rein A.
        Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2015; 4: 133-145
        • Albright K.
        • Gechter K.
        • Kempe A.
        Importance of mixed methods in pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research.
        Acad Pediatr. 2013; 13: 400-407
        • Forsythe L.P.
        • Ellis L.E.
        • Edmundson L.
        • et al.
        Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2016; 31: 13-21
        • Forsythe L.
        • Heckert A.
        • Margolis M.K.
        • et al.
        Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
        Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 17-31
        • Cené 1st, C.W.
        • Johnson B.H.
        • Wells N.
        • et al.
        Narrative review of patient and family engagement: the "foundation" of the medical "home".
        Med Care. 2016; 54: 697-705
        • Fryback D.G.
        • Thornbury J.R.
        The efficacy of diagnostic imaging.
        Med Decis Making. 1991; 11 (PubMed PMID: 1907710): 88-94
        • Kelly B.S.
        • Rainford L.A.
        • Darcy S.P.
        • et al.
        The Development of expertise in radiology: in chest radiograph interpretation, "expert" search pattern may predate "expert" levels of diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax identification.
        Radiology. 2016; 280 (Epub January 27, 2016. PubMed PMID: 27322975): 252-260
        • US Congress Office of Technology Assessment
        Breast cancer screening for Medicare beneficiaries: effectiveness, costs to Medicare and medical resources required.
        US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC1987 (Available at:) (Accessed April 24, 2018)
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Baumgardner J.R.
        Balancing the use of cost-effectiveness analysis across all types of health care innovations.
        Health Affairs Blog. 2017; (Available at:) (Accessed March 27, 2018)
        • van den Ende C.
        • Oordt-Speets A.M.
        • Vroling H.
        • et al.
        Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: a systematic review.
        Int J Cancer. 2017; 141 (Epub June 5, 2017. Review. PubMed PMID: 28542784): 1295-1306
        • Trentham-Dietz A.
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Stout N.K.
        • et al.
        Tailoring breast cancer screening intervals by breast density and risk for women aged 50years or older: collaborative modeling of screening outcomes.
        Ann Intern Med. 2016; 165 (Epub August 23, 2016. PubMed PMID: 27548583; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5125086): 700-712
        • Pashayan N.
        • Morris S.
        • Gilbert F.J.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast cancer: a life-table model.
        JAMA Oncol. 2018; ([Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29978189)
        • Caro J.J.
        • Trindade E.
        • McGregor M.
        The cost-effectiveness of replacing high-osmolality with low-osmolality contrast media.
        AJR. 1992; 159: 869-874
        • Wilmot A.
        • Mehta N.
        • Jha S.
        The adoption of low-osmolar contrast agents in the United States: historical analysis of health policy and clinical practice.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199: 1049-1053
      1. Rich, EC. From concept to policy: 10years after the call for a US center for comparative effectiveness information. J Comp Eff Res 2017; 6(1):9–11. doi:10.2217/cer-2016-0072. Epub Nov 4, 2016. PubMed PMID: 27809569.

      2. Institute of Medicine (IOM): 100 initial priority topics for comparative effectiveness research. Available at:∼/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/Stand%20Alone%20List%20of%20100%20CER%20Priorities%20-%20for%20web.ashx. Accessed March 1, 2018.

      3. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the president and the congress. Available at: Accessed March 1, 2018.

        • Harris R.P.
        • Helfand M.
        • Woolf S.H.
        • et al.
        Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.
        Am J Prev Med. 2001; 20 (PubMed PMID: 11306229): 21-35
        • Pauly M.V.
        • Sloan F.A.
        • Sullivan S.D.
        An economic framework for preventive care advice.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33 (PubMed PMID: 25368000): 2034-2040
      4. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Final recommendation statement, breast cancer: screening. Available at: Accessed March 1, 2018.

        • Sawaya G.F.
        • Guirguis-Blake J.
        • LeFevre M.
        • et al.
        Update on the methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 871-875
        • Otero H.J.
        • Rybicki F.J.
        • Greenberg D.
        • et al.
        Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?.
        Radiology. 2008; 249: 917-925
        • Park J.Y.
        • Lee K.H.
        • Ku Y.J.
        • et al.
        Characteristics, trends, and quality of systematic review and meta-analysis in general radiology between 2007 and 2015.
        Acad Radiol. 2017; 24: 1013-1022
        • Chambers J.D.
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Buxton M.J.
        Does Medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold?.
        Med Decis Making. 2010; 30: E14-E27