BACKGROUND: Although evidence suggests that a higher hemodialysis dose and/or frequency may be associated with improved outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of a daily hemodialysis strategy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) is unknown. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the cost, quality of life, survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness of daily hemodialysis, compared with alternate-day hemodialysis, for patients with AKI in the intensive care unit (ICU). We employed a societal perspective with a lifetime analytic time horizon. We modeled the efficacy of daily hemodialysis as a reduction in the relative risk of death on the basis of data reported in the 2004 clinical trial published by Schiffl et al. We performed 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses across cost, efficacy, and utility input variables. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the base case for a 60-year-old man, daily hemodialysis was projected to add 2.14 QALYs and $10,924 in cost. We found that the cost-effectiveness of daily hemodialysis compared with alternate-day hemodialysis was $5084 per QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio became less favorable (>$50,000 per QALY gained) when the maintenance hemodialysis rate of the daily hemodialysis group was varied to more than 27% and when the difference in 14-day postdischarge mortality between the alternatives was varied to less than 0.5%. CONCLUSION: Daily hemodialysis is a cost-effective strategy compared with alternate-day hemodialysis for patients with severe AKI in the ICU.

Private health plans and government health insurance programs in the United States base their coverage decisions on evidence criteria, rather than explicit cost-effectiveness criteria. As health spending continues to grow rapidly, however, approaches to coverage policy that ignore costs fail to meet the needs of consumers, employers, health plans, and federal and state governments. I describe the role of evidence-based criteria in formal coverage decision making and contrast the ways that these criteria differ from cost-effectiveness criteria. Finally, I discuss options for incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness into coverage policy and other aspects of benefit design.

First published in Pharmacoeconomics, Volume 14, pages 27-48, 1998.