Use Of Cost-effectiveness Analysis Research Articles

BMI Trajectories and the Influence of Missing Data

Abstract Introduction Body Mass Index (BMI) trajectories have been estimated in various ways. These estimates are important to understand how BMI develops over time and for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. However, missing data is often stated as a limitation in studies that analyse BMI over time and there is little research into how missing data can influence these BMI trajectories. The aim of this study is to determine how much influence missing data can have when estimating BMI trajectories and to explore the effects this has on subsequent analysis. Methods This study uses data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging. First, a growth mixture model is used to estimate distinct BMI trajectories in adults over the age of 50. Next, methods that assume data is missing at random (MAR) are used: complete case analysis and multiple imputation. Finally, Diggle Kenward and Roy methods that assume data is missing not at random (MNAR) are implemented. Estimated trajectories from each method are then used to predict the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using discrete-time survival analysis. Results Four distinct trajectories are identified using each of the methods to account for missing data: stable overweight, elevated BMI, increasing BMI, and decreasing BMI. However, the likelihoods of individuals following the different trajectories differs between the different methods. Results show that the influence of BMI trajectory on T2DM is reduced after accounting for missing data. More work is needed to understand which methods for missing data are most appropriate and give the most reliable results. Conclusions Missing data can significantly influence estimations of BMI trajectories. When using BMI trajectories to inform cost-effectiveness analysis or policymaking, missing data should be considered. More research is needed to examine the extent to which accounting for missing data might influence the cost-effectiveness of policies, e.g. weight management interventions. Key messages • Missing data is important when modelling BMI trajectories. • More research is needed to examine the extent to which accounting for missing data might influence the cost-effectiveness of policies, e.g. weight management interventions.

Cost of Cardiovascular Disease Event and Cardiovascular Disease Treatment-Related Complication Hospitalizations in the United States.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the costliest conditions in the United States, and cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to assess economic impact and prioritize CVD treatments. We aimed to develop standardized, nationally representative CVD events and selected possible CVD treatment-related complication hospitalization costs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. Nationally representative costs were derived using publicly available inpatient hospital discharge data from the 2012-2018 National Inpatient Sample. Events were identified using the principal International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. Facility charges were converted to costs using charge-to-cost ratios, and total costs were estimated by applying a published professional fee ratio. All costs are reported in 2021 US dollars. Mean costs were estimated for events overall and stratified by age, sex, and survival status at discharge. Annual costs to the US health care system were estimated by multiplying the mean annual number of events by the mean total cost per discharge. The annual mean number of hospital discharges among CVD events was the highest for heart failure (1 087 000 per year) and cerebrovascular disease (800 600 per year). The mean cost per hospital discharge was the highest for peripheral vascular disease ($33 700 [95% CI, $33 300-$34 000]) and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation ($32 500 [95% CI, $32 100-$32 900]). Hospitalizations contributing the most to annual US health care costs were heart failure ($19 500 [95% CI, $19 300-$19 800] million) and acute myocardial infarction ($18 300, [95% CI, $18 200-$18 500] million). Acute kidney injury was the most frequent possible treatment complication (515 000 per year), and bradycardia had the highest mean hospitalization costs ($17 400 [95% CI, $17 200-$17 500]). The hospitalization cost estimates and statistical code reported in the current study have the potential to increase transparency and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses for CVD in the United States.

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design – should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

BackgroundCountries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a ‘doing nothing’ scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow.MethodsThe present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds.ResultsSectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas.ConclusionsCountries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

P29 Evaluating the Appropriateness of the EQ-5D-5L Descriptive System and the Derived Health Utility Index Scores in Adults with Transfusion-Dependent Beta-Thalassemia: A Mixed-Methods Study

Transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia (TDT) is a severe form of β-thalassemia requiring lifelong red blood cell transfusions (RBCTs) and iron-chelation therapy. EQ-5D is commonly used to derive health utility index scores for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. However, despite the range of symptoms and functional impacts of TDT, prior studies show that EQ-5D health utility scores in TDT are often comparable to general population scores and may not adequately represent the impact of TDT. To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the appropriateness of EQ-5D-5L descriptive system (DS) for use in adults with TDT.

Multiple sclerosis health-related quality of life utility values from the UK MS register.

New interventions for multiple sclerosis (MS) commonly require a demonstration of cost-effectiveness using health-related quality of life (HRQoL) utility values. The EQ-5D is the utility measure approved for use in the UK NHS funding decision-making. There are also MS-specific utility measures - e.g., MS Impact Scale Eight Dimensions (MSIS-8D) and MSIS-8D-Patient (MSIS-8D-P). Provide EQ-5D, MSIS-8D and MSIS-8D-P utility values from a large UK MS cohort and investigate their association with demographic/clinical characteristics. UK MS Register data from 14,385 respondents (2011 to 2019) were analysed descriptively and using multivariable linear regression, with self-report Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. The EQ-5D and MSIS-8D were both sensitive to differences in demographic/clinical characteristics. An inconsistency found in previous studies whereby mean EQ-5D values were higher for an EDSS score of 4 rather than 3 was not observed. Similar utility values were observed between MS types at each EDSS score. Regression showed EDSS score and age were associated with utility values from all three measures. This study provides generic and MS-specific utility values for a large UK MS sample, with the potential for use in cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for MS.

P867 Cost-effectiveness and cost-only studies for Inflammatory Bowel Disease surgery: a scoping review

Abstract Background Studies examining the relative cost-effectiveness of surgical procedures and surgery-related interventions for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain limited. This dearth of studies hampers decision-makers’ assessment of surgery-related interventions for IBD patients. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of available literature for cost-effectiveness analyses of IBD-related surgery. Methods We performed a comprehensive search of English-language articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, and Scopus from each database's inception to May 1, 2022. Preplanned controlled vocabulary related to IBD and its subtypes, surgery, and measures of costs were used. We defined study selection criteria to include all IBD-related surgical interventions (including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) in all age groups that also reported a measure of costs of care. Studies comparing medical versus surgical interventions for refractory IBD were excluded. All search findings were screened by two reviewers using titles, abstracts, and ultimately full-length manuscripts. Full screened studies were then extracted for study characteristics and findings to facilitate a qualitative synthesis of results. Results We identified 1,804 citations for screening and ultimately found 10 formal cost-effectiveness studies and 56 cost-only studies. Cost-effectiveness studies assessed intraoperative (50%) and postoperative interventions (50%) mostly in patients with Crohn's disease (60%). Topics included comparisons of surgical approach (50%), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (30%), and surveillance for postoperative recurrence (2%). Of the cost-only studies, the majority focused on intraoperative interventions (89%), particularly in ulcerative colitis patients (60%). Areas of interest included costs associated with healthcare resource utilization during a surgery-related admission (89%), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (4%), and others (7%). Pre-defined areas of interest with no reported interventions included IBD-specific roles of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery interventions such as alvimopan, robotic surgery, timing to surgery, surgical therapies for perianal disease, pediatric Crohn's Disease, and genetic testing. Conclusion A scoping review found minimal literature using cost-effectiveness techniques to inform IBD-related surgical care. There are many more cost-only than cost-effectiveness studies related to these clinical topics. This asymmetry highlights immediately available opportunities for broadening the use of cost-effectiveness analysis of IBD-related surgical interventions.

HTA18 Impact of The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) on Patient Access to Medicines: A Comparison of CEA vs Non-CEA Markets

HTA18 Impact of The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) on Patient Access to Medicines: A Comparison of CEA vs Non-CEA Markets

QALYs and Value Assessment

QALYs and Value Assessment Mayvis Rebeira PhD, Canadian Health Policy Institute ABSTRACT This literature review highlights the limitations of using Quality-Adjusted Life-Years or QALYs, in assessing the value of therapies through its use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Objective:

PCR12 Patient and Caregiver Views on Novel Measures of the Value of Health Interventions

Increased use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the US has provoked questions regarding the appropriateness of traditional methods for fully capturing health technology value. Researchers have explored the feasibility of integrating novel value measures (e.g., value of hope, scientific spillovers). We investigated patient and caregiver views on the importance of both traditional and novel domains of value, and assessed whether views differed according to participant characteristics.

Can EQ-5D-3L utility values of low back pain patients be validly predicted by the Oswestry Disability Index for use in cost-effectiveness analyses?

PurposeTo assess whether regression modeling can be used to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in low back pain (LBP) patients for use in cost-effectiveness analysis.MethodsEQ-5D-3L utility values of LBP patients were estimated using their ODI scores as independent variables using regression analyses, while adjusting for case-mix variables. Six different models were estimated: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, with total ODI score, (2) OLS, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, (3) OLS, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables, (4) Tobit model, with total ODI score, (5) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, and (6) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables. The models’ performance was assessed using explained variance (R2) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The potential impact of using predicted instead of observed EQ-5D-3L utility values on cost-effectiveness outcomes was evaluated in two empirical cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsComplete individual patient data of 18,692 low back pain patients were analyzed. All models had a more or less similar R2 (range 45–52%) and RMSE (range 0.21–0.22). The two best performing models produced similar probabilities of cost-effectiveness for a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values compared to those based on the observed EQ-5D-3L values. For example, the difference in probabilities ranged from 2 to 5% at a WTP of 50,000 €/QALY gained.ConclusionResults suggest that the ODI can be validly used to predict low back pain patients’ EQ-5D-3L utility values and QALYs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature.

Novel interventions for sickle cell disease (SCD) bring hope to patients, yet concern about the associated economic costs exists. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) uses standardized methods, with robust underpinnings in health economics, to estimate the value of these interventions compared with usual care. However, because of the complexity and lifetime trajectory of SCD, CEAs are challenging to conduct. The objectives of this rapid review were to summarize the main characteristics, components, and results of published CEAs of existing interventions for SCD, identify research gaps, and provide directions for future analyses. We identified records through searches of bibliographic databases, from reference lists of relevant review articles, and through consultation with experts. A total of 13 CEAs met our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively synthesized. These evaluated blood transfusions (n = 2), hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (n = 1), pharmaceuticals (n = 2), hypothetical cell or genetic therapy (n = 1), screening programs (n = 4), and interventions for SCD treatment complications (n = 3). A limited number of potential SCD and treatment complications were evaluated. No study adopted a societal perspective in the base case, six studies examined lifetime cost-effectiveness, seven studies employed a Markov or discrete-event simulation model, and eight studies used an outcome metric that captured both quality and length of life. To better compare the value of emerging and current therapies, future CEAs should adopt a societal perspective incorporating both medical and nonmedical costs, comprehensively model SCD complexity using robust health economic simulation models over the patient's entire lifespan, and capture the intervention's effect on both survival and quality of life.

Measuring Value: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Occupational Therapy.

Stroke rehabilitation is expensive, and recent changes to Medicare reimbursement demand more efficient interventions. The use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help occupational therapy practitioners, rehabilitation directors, and payers better understand the value of occupational therapy and decide whether or not to implement new treatments. The objective of this article is to illustrate the contribution of CEA to stroke rehabilitation using a hypothetical new intervention as an example. What This Article Adds: This article facilitates an understanding of the importance of CEA to occupational therapy. It also explains how CEA improves consistency with reporting standards for cost-effectiveness studies.

An International Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of using EQ5D-5L (5L) compared with EQ5D-3L (3L) in cost-effectiveness analyses in 6 countries with 3L and 5L values: Germany, Japan, Korea, The Netherlands, China, and Spain. MethodsEight cost-effectiveness analyses based on clinical studies with 3L provided 11 pairwise comparisons. We estimated cost-effectiveness by applying the appropriate country values for 3L to observed responses. We re-estimated cost-effectiveness for each country by predicting the 5L tariff score for each respondent, for each country, using a previously published mapping method. We compared results in terms of impact on estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and cost-effectiveness ratios. ResultsFor most countries the impact of moving from 3L to 5L is to lower the incremental QALY gain in the majority of comparisons. The only exception to this was Japan, where 4 out of 11 cases (37%) saw lower QALYs gained when using 5L. The mean and median reductions in health gain, in those case studies where 5L does lead to lower health gain, are largest in The Netherlands (84% mean reduction, 41% median reduction), Germany (68% and 27%), and Spain (30% and 31%). For most countries, those studies where 5L leads to lower health gain see larger reductions than the gains in studies showing the opposite tendency. ConclusionsOverall, 3L and 5L are not interchangeable in these countries. Differences between results are large, but the direction of change can be unpredictable. These findings should prompt further investigation into the reasons for differences.

93-LB: Preferences and Health State Utilities Associated with Routes of Administration for Oral Semaglutide, Injectable Semaglutide, and Dulaglutide

Objective: Previous studies have examined health state utilities (which are preference weightings for use in cost-effectiveness analyses) associated with injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). An oral formulation of semaglutide (sema) has recently become available. This study estimates health state utilities representing preferences associated with routes of administration for daily oral sema and two weekly injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. Methods: Participants with T2D in the UK valued four health state vignettes (drafted based on drug labels and device instructions for use) in time trade-off interviews to estimate preference-based utility scores. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D, but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without specific administration requirements), (2) daily oral sema (tablet with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide (dula) injection, (4) weekly sema injection. Results: Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age=58.7). Preferences among routes of administration varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral sema, 0.878 for dula injection, and 0.859 for sema injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences among the four utility scores (p<0.01), except the comparison between oral sema and dula which was not significant (p=0.49). Conclusions: While some participants preferred daily oral treatment, others preferred one of the weekly injections. Results suggest that patient preferences for routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., “oral” vs. “injectable”). The details of treatment administration and treatment frequency have an impact on preference and should be considered. Disclosure K. Boye: Employee; Self; Lilly Diabetes. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. K. Cutts: Employee; Self; Evidera. K. Stewart: Employee; Self; Evidera. K. Norrbacka: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. L.E. García-Pérez: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. L.S. Matza: Employee; Self; Evidera.

Mapping the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) onto the Assessment of Quality of Life 8D (AQoL-8D) utility scores.

The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) is a widely used condition-specific measure of quality of life (QoL) in patients with heart failure. To use information from the MLHFQ in an economic evaluation, the MLHFQ must be mapped onto a preference-based measure of QoL. This study aims to develop a mapping algorithm between the MLHFQ and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D utility instrument in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). MLHFQ and AQoL-8D data were collected on 61 Australian adults with idiopathic DCM or other non-hypertrophic cardiomyopathies. Three statistical methods were used as follows: ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, the robust MM estimator, and the generalised linear models (GLM). Each included a range of explanatory variables. Model performance was assessed using key goodness-of-fit measures, the mean absolute error (MAE), and the root-mean-square error (RMSE). The MLHFQ summary score and AQoL-8D utility scores were strongly correlated (r = - 0.83, p < 0.0001) and the two subscales of the MLHFQ were correlated with the eight dimensions of the AQoL-8D. Utility scores were predicted with acceptable precision based on responses to the MLHFQ physical, emotional, social, and other subscales. OLS and GLM performed similarly with MAE and RMSE ranging 0.086-0.106 and 0.114-0.130, respectively. The mapping algorithm developed in this study allows the derivation of AQoL-8D utilities from MLHFQ scores for use in cost-effectiveness analyses and most importantly, enables the economic evaluation of alternative heart failure therapy options when only the MLHFQ has been collected.

Drug Selection for Formulary Inclusion: An Exploratory Case Study of Oncology Medicines in Jordan

BackgroundAccess to healthcare services including innovative treatments is one of the most important objectives of healthcare system in Jordan. This research summarized one of the actual practices pertaining to health priority setting in Jordan with official requirement to use cost-effectiveness analysis. ObjectivesTo address the role of economic evidence to inform the decisions and rationales drawn by health policy experts to optimize resources mobilization for new cancer drugs. MethodThe research reported a case study of formulary setting priority in Jordan. Documentary collation and analysis of a secondary source (meeting minutes) produced by decision committee were conducted by the research team. The decisions and rationales shaped by panelists for 22 newly registered oncology drugs at Jordan Food and Drug Administration were reviewed and described. ResultsIt was found that the absence of official health economic guidelines in the country and informal use of cost-effectiveness analysis by the panelists appeared to flaw the importance of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Nevertheless, “the lower the ICER, the better the drug” was the primary factor in all committee’s decisions to inform resources mobilization. Despite of the latter, 7 drugs were selected for formulary inclusion for different oncology disease areas in Jordan. ConclusionsPriority setting for new cancer drugs is not well-informed in Jordan. Nevertheless, this research revealed different disadvantages that appear to militate against the perspective of the study. Recommendations for implementation and enhancement of health economic evaluation include further investment in capacity building (eg, prepare qualified health economists) and create incentive to improve availability and accessibility of local data.

The cost of saving babies: How economists justify policies

The relationship between economic ideas and public policy is a growing area of sociological inquiry. This paper examines a unique case of economic influence on policy: use of cost-effectiveness analysis in assessing the expansion of newborn screening programmes. Unlike other forms of influence in which economic ideas precede the creation of new policies and are used to aid policy-making, in this case, economics is used to justify newborn screening expansion post-hoc. We describe cost-effectiveness analysis as a technology of economic justification, and we examine how its assembly, standardization and application is the result of compromises made by researchers navigating the tension between standardized guidelines and unreliable data sources.

Evaluating Partitioned Survival and Markov Decision-Analytic Modeling Approaches for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Estimating and Comparing Survival Outcomes.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess long-term survival outcomes for nivolumab and everolimus in renal cell carcinoma predicted by three model structures, a partitioned survival model (PSM) and two variations of a semi-Markov model (SMM), for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.MethodsThree economic model structures were developed and populated using parametric curves fitted to patient-level data from the CheckMate 025 trial. Models consisted of three health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. The PSM estimated state occupancy using an area under-the-curve approach from overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves. The SMMs derived transition probabilities to calculate patient flow between health states. One SMM assumed that post-progression survival (PPS) was independent of PFS duration (PPS Markov); the second SMM assumed differences in PPS based on PFS duration (PPS–PFS Markov).ResultsAll models provide a reasonable fit to the observed OS data at 2 years. For estimating cost effectiveness, however, a more relevant comparison is between estimates of OS over the modeling horizon, because this will likely impact differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Estimates of the incremental mean survival benefit of nivolumab versus everolimus over 20 years were 6.6 months (PSM), 7.6 months (PPS Markov), and 7.4 months (PPS–PFS Markov), reflecting non-trivial differences of + 14% and + 11%, respectively, compared with PSM.ConclusionsThe evidence from this study and previous work highlights the importance of the assumptions underlying any model structure, and the need to validate assumptions regarding survival and the application of treatment effects against what is known about the characteristics of the disease.

Using the Fatigue Severity Scale to inform healthcare decision-making in multiple sclerosis: mapping to three quality-adjusted life-year measures (EQ-5D-3L, SF-6D, MSIS-8D)

BackgroundFatigue has a major influence on the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis. The Fatigue Severity Scale is a frequently used patient-reported measure of fatigue impact, but does not generate the health state utility values required to inform cost-effectiveness analysis, limiting its applicability within decision-making contexts. The objective of this study was to use statistical mapping methods to convert Fatigue Severity Scale scores to health state utility values from three preference-based measures: the EQ-5D-3L, SF-6D and Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-8D.MethodsThe relationships between the measures were estimated through regression analysis using cohort data from 1056 people with multiple sclerosis in South West England. Estimation errors were assessed and predictive performance of the best models as tested in a separate sample (n = 352).ResultsFor the EQ-5D and the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-8D, the best performing models used a censored least absolute deviation specification, with Fatigue Severity Scale total score, age and gender as predictors. For the SF-6D, the best performing model used an ordinary least squares specification, with Fatigue Severity Scale total score as the only predictor.ConclusionsHere we present algorithms to convert Fatigue Severity Scales scores to health state utility values based on three preference-based measures. These values may be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years for use in cost-effectiveness analyses and to consider the health-related quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis, thereby informing health policy decisions.

Valuing Health: Evolution, Revolution, Resistance, and Reform

A number of methods have sought to determine the value of interventions and services that promote health, even when no agreement exists on the proper way to determine and define “value.” Previous valuation efforts began simply by counting deaths or measuring life expectancy, slowly evolving to the widespread use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as the de facto normative standard for medical interventions. Users of CEA recognize that the method is incomplete. Further, no meaningful agreement exists on how best to apply CEA in decision settings because of either inadequacies in the CEA framework or lack of consensus on how to use it in a setting with budget constraints. Yet efforts to value health still predominantly use (and continue to recommend) this limited framework. Is this owing to a lack of new ideas and motivation, resistance to change, or an aversion to embrace more comprehensive systems approaches? We argue that tools of systems engineering can advance our capabilities, but they have had only limited use in health policy. We identify some reasons and specifically highlight the promise of systems-analytic platforms—such as multicriteria decision support systems—and the need to make them more accessible for different uses in real situations with real consequences. We also explore the need for comparative testing of different multicriteria approaches (including direct comparisons with CEA) to learn when and by how much the recommendations differ and what the consequences might be.