Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Don Husereau (a1), Deborah A. Marshall (a2), Adrian R. Levy (a3), Stuart Peacock (a4) and Jeffrey S. Hoch (a5)...


Background: Many jurisdictions delivering health care, including Canada, have developed guidance for conducting economic evaluation, often in the service of larger health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement processes. Like any health intervention, personalized medical (PM) interventions have costs and consequences that must be considered by reimbursement authorities with limited resources. However, current approaches to economic evaluation to support decision making have been largely developed from population-based approaches to therapy—that is, evaluating the costs and consequences of single interventions across single populations. This raises the issue as to whether these methods, as they are or more refined, are adequate to address more targeted approaches to therapy, or whether a new paradigm for assessing value in PM is required.

Objectives: We describe specific issues relevant to the economic evaluation of diagnostics-based PM and assess whether current guidance for economic evaluation is sufficient to support decision making for PM interventions.

Methods: Issues were identified through literature review and informal interviews with national and international experts (n = 10) in these analyses. This article elaborates on findings and discussion at a workshop held in Ottawa, Canada, in January 2012.

Results: Specific issues related to better guiding economic evaluation of personalized medicine interventions include: how study questions are developed, populations are characterized, comparators are defined, effectiveness is evaluated, outcomes are valued and how resources are measured. Diagnostics-based PM also highlights the need for analyses outside of economic evaluation to support decision making.

Conclusions: The consensus of this group of experts is that the economic evaluation of diagnostics-based PM may not require a new paradigm. However, greater complexity means that existing approaches and tools may require improvement to undertake these more analyses.



Hide All
1. Tarn, T, Smith, MD. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connect. 2004;10:515.
2. Eldessouki, R, Dix Smith, M. Health care system information sharing: A step toward better health globally. Value Health Regional Issues. 2012;1:118120.
3. Mittmann, N, Evans, WK, Rocchi, A, et al. Guidelines for health technologies: Specific guidance for oncology products in Canada. Value Health. 2012;15:580585.
4. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, G, O'Brien, B, Stoddart, G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 2005.
5. Faulkner, E, Annemans, L, Garrison, L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: A report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group. Value Health. 2012;15:11621171.
6. Stallings, SC, Huse, D, Finkelstein, SN, et al. A framework to evaluate the economic impact of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7:853862.
7. Repa, R. The power of innovation. Ontario: Hamilton; 2010.
8. The Lewin Group. Under the microscope: Trends in laboratory medicine [Internet]. Oakland: California Healthcare Foundation; 2009. (accessed December 25, 2013).
9. Becla, L, Lunshof, JE, Gurwitz, D, et al. Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:118126.
10. Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:718.
11. Teutsch, SM, Bradley, LA, Palomaki, GE, et al. The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: Methods of the EGAPP working group. Genet Med. 2009;11:314.
12. Fang, C, Otero, HJ, Greenberg, D, Neumann, PJ. Cost-utility analyses of diagnostic laboratory tests: A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14:10101018.
13. CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. 46 p.
14. Beaulieu, M, de Denus, S, Lachaine, J. Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies of pharmacogenomic tests. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11:15731590.
15. Wong, WB, Carlson, JJ, Thariani, R, Veenstra, DL. Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:10011013.
16. Paci, D, Ibarreta, D. Economic and cost-effectiveness considerations for pharmacogenetics tests: An integral part of translational research and innovation uptake in personalized medicine. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2009;7:284–96.
17. Mittmann, N, Au, H-J, Tu, D, et al. Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: Evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:11821192.
18. Health Quality Ontario. KRAS Testing for anti-EGFR therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: An evidence-based and economic analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10:149.
19. Dranitsaris, G, Norris, B, Hanna, W, O'Malley, F, Gelmon, K. Identifying the optimal timing of HER2/neu testing in patients with breast cancer: A Canadian cost minimization analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;76:S135135.
20. Dendukuri, N, Khetani, K, McIsaac, M, Brophy, J. Testing for HER2-positive breast cancer: A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. CMAJ. 2007;176:14291434.
21. Paulden, M, Franek, J, Pham, B, Krahn, M. Gene expression profiling for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in women with early breast cancer: A Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1000 strategies for the provision of adjuvant! Online, Oncotype Dx and Chemotherapy. Value Health. 2011;14:A167167.
22. Hannouf, MB, Xie, B, Brackstone, M, Zaric, GS. Cost-effectiveness of a 21-gene recurrence score assay versus Canadian clinical practice in women with early-stage estrogen- or progesterone-receptor-positive, axillary lymph-node negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:447.
23. Basu, A, Meltzer, D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:112127.
24. Wong, WB, Carlson, JJ, Thariani, R, Veenstra, DL. Cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:10011013.
25. IOM (Institute of Medicine). The economics of genomic medicine: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
26. Elkin, EB, Marshall, DA, Kulin, NA, et al. Economic evaluation of targeted cancer interventions: Critical review and recommendations. Genet Med. 2011;13:853860.
27. Ferrusi, IL, Leighl, NB, Kulin, NA, Marshall, DA. Do economic evaluations of targeted therapy provide support for decision makers? J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:36s45s.
28. Postma, MJ, Boersma, C, Vandijck, D, et al. Health technology assessments in personalized medicine: Illustrations for cost-effectiveness analysis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:367369.
29. Annemans, L, Redekop, K, Payne, K. Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health. 2013;16:S2026.
30. Personalized Medicine Coalition. The case for personalized medicine, 3rd ed [Internet]. Personalized Medicine Coalition. (accessed October 26, 2012).
31. Lee, DW, Neumann, PJ, Rizzo, JA. Understanding the medical and nonmedical value of diagnostic testing. Value Health. 2010;13:310314.
32. Birch, S, Donaldson, C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: Where's the “extra” in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:11211133.
33. Basu, A, Meltzer, D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2005;24:751773.
34. Merlin, T, Farah, C, Schubert, C, et al. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: A national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:333342.
35. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Section D: Economic evaluation for the main indication [Internet]. (accessed October 26, 2012).
36. Elkin, EB, Marshall, DA, Kulin, NA, et al. Economic evaluation of targeted cancer interventions: Critical review and recommendations. Genet Med. 2011;13:853860.
37. Basu, A. Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. J Health Econ. 2011;30:549559.
38. Ferrusi, IL, Earle, CC, Trudeau, M, et al. Closing the personalized medicine information gap: HER2 test documentation practice. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19:838844.
39. Basu, A, Heckman, JJ, Navarro-Lozano, S, Urzua, S. Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: An application to treatments of breast cancer patients. Health Econ. 2007;16:11331157.
40. NICE. Diagnostics Assessment Programme manual [Internet]. NICE. [cited 2014 Jan 6]. (accessed January 6, 2014).
41. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:117122.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Husereau Supplementary Material
Table 1

 Word (18 KB)
18 KB


  • Don Husereau (a1), Deborah A. Marshall (a2), Adrian R. Levy (a3), Stuart Peacock (a4) and Jeffrey S. Hoch (a5)...


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed