Incremental cost analysis is when you want to know the additional cost because of an additional intervention or in case of diseases lets say existence of co-morbidity:

example: you study the cost of treatment for patients with Diabetes only and compared the cost for treatment of Diabetic patients with co-morbid illness lets say Diabetic foot; this is the case where incremental cost analysis would be more relevant.

In your case if the new intervention is an additional intervention to the already existing ones then calculating the cost using Incremental cost analysis is applicable.

It is basically comparing the Incremental Cost & Incremental Benefits. The key in this identifying and isolating the incremental benefits.

That which has the lowest cost per same unit of output will be chosen; or that which yields the most benefit for the cost. You will have done the basic CEA analysis of course, with compared interventions. Your question, i assume, is related to interpretation of your results.

Thank you everyone for your insights, and yes my question was related to interpretation of the results. Now those issues which were bothering me are cleared.

in CEA you can have three scenarios: 1) absolute dominance, 2) extended dominance, 3) cost effective given a WTP.

1) this is a scenario when an intervention (original or new) costs less and produces greater effect than an alternative.

2) this is a scenario where two or more interventions, e.g. X, Z and Q, form a linear combination (extending a line between X, Z and Q) in the Cost-effectiveness plane whose epigraph contains an alternative intervention, Y which we say is dominated by extension via X, Z and Q.

3) this is a scenario where an alternative intervention produces greater effect but at a greater cost than an original or comparator. However, this extra cost is below some predetermined Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold: extra costs we are willing to pay in order to have 1 unit more of the effect. In the US this is usually $50,000 per QALY. UK about 20,000 pounds.

thank you for giving your valuable input sir...

Dear Ankit,

If you are conducting CEA using intermediate or short-term outcome(s), the ICER that you obtain may only be reflective for the short-duration of period. Although it may not be cost-effective for short term duration, if you project the outcomes for longer duration, it may be cost-effective, provided that you have set the CE threshold or WTP threshold. It would be great if you can compare it to your country's threshold or suggested threshold by WHO.

Good luck!

Thank you Mam, your answer is feasible.

Dear Sir

You can get the result of treatment from specialist with getting score from them in a specific frame work and considering the price of drug , shadow price and opportunity cost, for this calculation you can use ISPOR task force guidelines

Good luck

Dear Sir

You can get the result of treatment from specialist with getting score from them in a specific frame work and considering the price of drug , shadow price and opportunity cost, for this calculation you can use ISPOR task force guidelines.

yours truly

Dear Sir

You can get the result of treatment from specialist with getting score from them in a specific frame work and considering the price of drug , shadow price and opportunity cost, for this calculation you can use ISPOR task force guidelines.yours truly

Dear Sir,

You can get the result of treatment from specialist with getting score from them in a specific frame work and considering the price of drug , shadow price and opportunity cost, for this calculation you can use ISPOR task force guidelines.

yours truly

Dear Sir,

You can get the result of treatment from specialist with getting score from them in a specific frame work and considering the price of drug , shadow price and opportunity cost, for this calculation you can use ISPOR task force guidelines.

yours truly