The Rationale for Economic Evaluation in Speech and Language: Cost, Effectiveness, and Cost-effectiveness

Jeffrey S. Hoch; Bridgette P. Smith; Jiyeong Kim; Carolyn S. Dewa

doi:10.1055/s-0042-1750345

Seminars in Speech and Language, Table of Contents

Semin Speech Lang 2022; 43(03): 208-217
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750345

Review Article

The Rationale for Economic Evaluation in Speech and Language: Cost, Effectiveness, and Cost-effectiveness

Authors

Jeffrey S. Hoch

¹Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California

²Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, California
Bridgette P. Smith

¹Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California
Jiyeong Kim

¹Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California
Carolyn S. Dewa

¹Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California

³Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, California

Abstract

Economic evaluation studies the costs and outcomes of two or more alternative activities to estimate the relative efficiency of each course of action. Economic evaluation is both important and necessary in the management of speech and language issues. Economic evaluation can help focus attention on interventions that provide value for improving population health. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to fundamental economic concepts. Readers are also introduced to common issues when conducting economic evaluations and how to address them in practice.

Keywords

cost - cost-effectiveness - economic evaluation - health economics

Full Text

References

References
1 Drummond M, Stoddart G, Labelle R, Cushman R. Health economics: an introduction for clinicians. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107 (01) 88-92
2 Raftery J. Economic evaluation: an introduction. BMJ 1998; 316 (7136): 1013-1014
3 Torbica A. HTA around the world: broadening our understanding of cross-country differences. Value Health 2020; 23 (01) 1-2
4 Trenaman L, Pearson SD, Hoch JS. How are incremental cost-effectiveness, contextual considerations, and other benefits viewed in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations in the United States?. Value Health 2020; 23 (05) 576-584
5 Schwartz JA, Pearson SD. Cost consideration in the clinical guidance documents of physician specialty societies in the United States. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (12) 1091-1097
6 Jacobs M, Briley PM, Wright HH, Ellis C. Marginal assessment of the cost and benefits of aphasia treatment: Evidence from community-based telerehabilitation treatment for aphasia. J Telemed Telecare 2021; doi: 10.1177/1357633×20982773
7 Kertesz A. Western Aphasia Battery-Revised. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation; 2007
8 Jacobs M, Briley PM, Fang X, Ellis C. Telepractice treatment for aphasia: association between clinical outcomes and client satisfaction. Telemed Rep 2021; 2 (01) 118-124
9 Hoch JS, Dewa CS. A clinician's guide to correct cost-effectiveness analysis: think incremental not average. Can J Psychiatry 2008; 53 (04) 267-274
10 Danzon PM, Drummond MF, Towse A, Pauly MV. Objectives, budgets, thresholds, and opportunity costs-a health economics approach: an ISPOR Special Task Force Report [4]. Value Health 2018; 21 (02) 140-145
11 Jacobs M, Ellis C. Estimating the cost and value of functional changes in communication ability following telepractice treatment for aphasia. PLoS One 2021; 16 (09) e0257462
12 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS). 2021. Accessed May 22, 2022 at: https://www.asha.org/noms/
13 Paul DR, Frattali CM, Holland A, Thompson CK, Caperton CJ, Slater SC. Quality of Communication Life Scale (ASHA QCL). Rockville, MD: American Speech Language Hearing Association; 2005
14 Palmer R, Cooper C, Enderby P. et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of computer treatment for aphasia post stroke (Big CACTUS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16: 18
15 Latimer NR, Dixon S, Palmer R. Cost-utility of self-managed computer therapy for people with aphasia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29 (04) 402-409
16 Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008; 8 (02) 165-178
17 Jaime Caro J. Editorial: pursuing efficiency: a dead end for HTA?. Value Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 02) S49