Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Richardson, J.

Abstract

The paper re-examines the issue of the appropriate unit for measuring output in cost utility analysis and the technique that will measure it. There are two main themes. The first is that utility, as it is often conceived and quantified, is not an appropriate basis for measurement. Consequently, a question arises concerning the selection of an appropriate unit of measurement. The second theme is that there is a need to establish criteria for the evaluation of measurement units. Four criteria are proposed which follow from commonly accepted social objectives and from the requirements of a measurement unit. It is concluded that, as judged by these criteria, the measurement units produced by the time trade-off and person trade-off (equivalence) techniques are more satisfactory than the units produced by the rating scale, magnitude estimation or the standard gamble.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-46694CN-GV/2/8dbe196f47f0db6f7744ea6ba49ee998
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

Volume (Year): 39 (1994)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Pages: 7-21

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:1:p:7-21

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

Order Information:
Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

Related research

Keywords: cost utility analysis quality adjusted life years standard gamble;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto & José María Abellán-Perpiñán, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 676, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  2. Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpi�an & Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades, 1999. "Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 701-707.
  3. Pope, Robin, 2004. "Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 695-735, July.
  4. Dolan, Paul & Jones-Lee, Michael, 1997. "The time trade-off: A note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 731-739, December.
  5. José Luis Pinto, 1995. "Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Some caveats," Economics Working Papers 140, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  6. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664.
  7. Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Maria & Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, 2009. "The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1039-1047, December.
  8. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456.
  9. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1997. "QALYs and HYEs Spotting the differences," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 601-608, October.
  10. John Brazier & Christopher McCabe, 2007. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA' by Parkin and Devlin a response: 'yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 645-647.
  11. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2006. "Multi-method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 215-218.
  12. Chen Li & Zhihua Li & Peter Wakker, 2014. "If nudge cannot be applied: a litmus test of the readers’ stance on paternalism," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 297-315, March.
  13. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51.
  14. Bleichrodt, Han & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 155-175, April.
  15. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290.
  16. Colin Green, 2001. "On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 233-243.
  17. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:1:p:7-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.