An extension of the real option approach to the evaluation of health care technologies: the case of positron emission tomography

This paper aims to incorporate option values into the economic evaluation of positron emission tomography (PET). The installation of this equipment requires a substantial capital outlay, while uncertainty, especially regarding the possibility of new applications, is relevant, because the evidence available is still insufficient. Treating the number of examinations to provide as a stochastic variable, the cost–effectiveness analysis is extended to include the value of flexibility both with respect to the timing of investment and to the size of the project. The threshold values of the stochastic variable that ensure the cost–effectiveness of a PET scan according to this approach are obtained as a function of the value of the incremental effectiveness.

[1]  C. Hollenbeak,et al.  The cost‐effectiveness of fluorodeoxyglucose 18‐F positron emission tomography in the N0 neck , 2001, Cancer.

[2]  Sheridan Titman,et al.  Urban Land Prices under Uncertainty , 1985 .

[3]  P. Sharp,et al.  Investing in new technology: the PET experience , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[4]  Avinash Dixit,et al.  The art of smooth pasting , 1993 .

[5]  G. Barone-Adesi,et al.  Efficient Analytic Approximation of American Option Values , 1987 .

[6]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  The Option Value of Delay in Health Technology Assessment , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  M. Gould,et al.  The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States Veterans Affairs hospitals and two academic medical centers. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  A. Soubeyran,et al.  Early initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapies for AIDS: dynamic choice with endogenous and exogenous learning. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[9]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. , 2007, Health economics.

[10]  A. Gandjour,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET for the management of solitary pulmonary nodules: a decision analysis based on cost reimbursement in Germany , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  Peter C. Smith,et al.  A Real Options Approach to Watchful Waiting: Theory and an Illustration , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  J. Roxburgh,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of preoperative positron emission tomography in ischemic heart disease. , 2002, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[13]  R. Leidl,et al.  Overview of economic evaluation of positron-emission tomography , 2001, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[14]  K Claxton,et al.  The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. , 1999, Journal of health economics.

[15]  K. Huisman.  Technology Investment: A Game Theoretic Real Options Approach , 2001 .

[16]  S. Palmer,et al.  Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. , 2000, Journal of health economics.

[17]  Andrew R Willan,et al.  Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. , 2009, Health economics.

[18]  Wolfgang Greiner,et al.  Health Technology Assessment (HTA) , 2008 .

[19]  S S Gambhir,et al.  A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. , 2001, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  R. Milne,et al.  Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[21]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Real Options and Investment under Uncertainty: Classical Readings and Recent Contributions , 2004 .

[22]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[23]  S. Reske,et al.  Primary staging of lymphomas: cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.