Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies.

M Johannesson1

  • 1Centre for Health Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. hemj@hhs.se

Pharmacoeconomics
|April 7, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

An epigenome-wide association study meta-analysis of educational attainment.

Molecular psychiatry·2017
Same author

Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012).

Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science·2017
Same author

Cloning, purification and characterization of non-human primate 12/15-lipoxygenases.

Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids·2010
Same author

Consensus on the use and interpretation of cystic fibrosis mutation analysis in clinical practice.

Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society·2008
Same author

Guidelines for the management of pregnancy in women with cystic fibrosis.

Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society·2007
Same author

Genetics of autoimmune diseases: a multistep process.

Current topics in microbiology and immunology·2006
Same journal

Balancing Access and Value in Multi-Indication Medicines: Implications of PD-L1 Broad Listings in Australia.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

Community Pharmacist Preferences for Providing a Dose Administration Aid Service in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

A Critical Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches and Methodologies used in Hyperlipidaemia Economic Evaluations.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

Deriving a Korean SF-6Dv2 Value Set Using a Discrete Choice Experiment with Duration.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
Same journal

Correction: Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.

PharmacoEconomics·2026
See all related articles

Cost-utility analyses can double-count consequences by including them in both costs and quality adjustments. This study explains the double-counting problem and offers solutions for accurate quality-adjusted life year (QALY) assessments.

Area of Science:

  • Health Economics
  • Pharmacoeconomics
  • Decision Analysis

Background:

  • Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a key method for evaluating pharmaceutical treatments.
  • CUAs measure costs in monetary terms and effects as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
  • QALYs incorporate health-related quality of life using weights from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline the potential for double-counting in cost-utility analyses.
  • To identify factors influencing the risk of double-counting.
  • To propose methods for avoiding double-counting in QALY assessments.

Main Methods:

  • The study reviews the principles of cost-utility analysis and QALY construction.
  • It analyzes how financing of healthcare and income losses impacts double-counting.

Related Experiment Videos

  • It examines the effect of question phrasing in quality weight assessments.

    • Main Results:

    • Double-counting can occur when consequences are considered in both cost and QALY calculations.
    • The risk of double-counting is influenced by the financing of healthcare costs and income losses.
    • The phrasing of questions used to assess quality weights is critical.

    Conclusions:

    • Double-counting in CUAs can be avoided by instructing respondents to assume full reimbursement for healthcare costs and income losses.
    • This approach ensures quality weights reflect only health and leisure changes.
    • Other consequences can then be accurately incorporated into the cost estimation.