Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Kesehatan: Sebuah Tinjauan Literatur dan Analisis Kebijakan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31004/joecy.v6i1.8355Keywords:
cost-utility analysis, economic evaluation, health policy, QALYs, health technology assessmentAbstract
The increasing cost of healthcare services, limited resources, and growing demand for high-quality care require rational and evidence-based decision-making approaches. One of the most widely used economic evaluation methods in health policy is Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), which assesses the efficiency of health interventions by comparing costs and outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). This study aims to systematically review the concepts, methods, and applications of CUA in health policy decision-making, as well as to identify its benefits, limitations, and implementation challenges. A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant articles published between 2019 and 2025 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were analyzed thematically and synthesized narratively. The findings indicate that CUA is widely applied in the evaluation of health technologies, service delivery models, preventive programs, and population-based strategies, and plays a key role within the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) framework. The use of QALYs enables comprehensive comparisons across diseases and populations. However, several challenges remain, including limited availability of local utility data, methodological variability, and ethical and equity-related concerns. In conclusion, CUA serves as a strategic tool for supporting efficient and transparent health policy decision-making. Nevertheless, it should be used as a complementary instrument alongside ethical and social considerations to ensure fair and sustainable health policies.
References
Bognar, G. (2020). The ethics of health care rationing: An introduction. Routledge.
Brazier, J., Ara, R., Azzabi, I., et al. (2017). Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: An ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value in Health, 22(3), 267–275.
Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press.
Guan, H., Wang, C., Xiao, R., Zhou, T., Li, W., Xu, Y., Nie, H., Zhao, Z., Han, S., & Xie, F. (2025). How was published evidence used in model-based cost-utility analysis for lung cancer? Health Economics Review, 15, 5
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). Cochrane.
Huang, M., Xie, J., Romdhani, H., Song, Y., Lee, S., Liu, D., Elbasha, E., Mohanty, S., Rowen, D., & Kelly, M. S. (2026). Global assessment of health utilities associated with pneumococcal disease in adults: Targeted literature reviews. PharmacoEconomics - Open, 10, 5-33. doi: 10.1007/s41669-025-00608-9¹
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., … Moher, D. (2022). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 25(1), 10–31
Neumann, P. J., Sanders, G. D., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., & Ganiats, T. G. (2017). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Neumann, P. J., Sanders, G. D., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., & Ganiats, T. G. (2017). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Norheim, O. F., Baltussen, R., Johri, M., et al. (2014). Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): The inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 12(18)
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Palmer, S., Raftery, J., & Brazier, J. (2016). Economics of health care financing: The visible hand. Palgrave Macmillan.
Teerawattananon, Y., Luz, A., Yothasamut, J., Pattanaphesaj, J., & Werayingyong, P. (2019). Historical development of health technology assessment in Thailand. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 35(2), 1–8.
Tran, A. D., Zhan, X., Vinzent, A., Flood, L., Bai, T., Gallagher, E., & Zaric, G. S. (2024). The use of health utility in cost-utility analysis: A systematic review in substance use disorders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 133, 104570.
World Health Organization. (2020). Global spending on health: Weathering the storm. WHO.
World Health Organization. (2021). Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. WHO.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lismardani Lismardani, Eko Khair Anthony, Eka Yan Fitri, Budi Hartono, Alfani Ghutsa Daud
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
