IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i4p583-595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K

Author

Listed:
  • Drummond, Michael
  • Cooke, Jonathan
  • Walley, Tom

Abstract

Although economic evaluation in health care has a long-standing tradition in the United Kingdom, very little is known about its impact on decision making, particularly following the introduction of the internal market. Since managed competition appears to be growing in popularity worldwide, the U.K. is an interesting case study, as the reforms are well underway and there have been a number of efforts to conduct and disseminate economic evaluations. In this paper the potential for using economic evaluation in health care decision making in the U.K. is discussed. Then its actual impact is assessed in two ways. First, two case studies are discussed, on heart transplantation and the use of pharmaceuticals in the management of labour in pregnancy. Second, new data from a recent survey of potential users of economic evaluations are presented, with the emphasis on exploring the reasons for the impact, or lack of impact, of economic results. It is concluded that the NHS reforms increase the potential for the use of economic evaluation. However, there is a need to increase decision makers' awareness of economic studies and to help them interpret study methodology and results. Although worries about validity of economic studies are one of the major barriers to their use, other important barriers relate to the multiple objectives being pursued, of which increased efficiency is just one, and the difficulties of freeing resources from existing services in order to divert them to more cost-effective treatments and programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Drummond, Michael & Cooke, Jonathan & Walley, Tom, 1997. "Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 583-595, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:583-595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00398-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mason, James & Eccles, Martin & Freemantle, Nick & Drummond, Michael, 1999. "A framework for incorporating cost-effectiveness in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 37-52, April.
    2. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2012. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14021.
    3. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    4. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    5. Jansson, Sandra & Anell, Anders, 2006. "The impact of decentralised drug-budgets in Sweden - a survey of physicians' attitudes towards costs and cost-effectiveness," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 299-311, May.
    6. Andrea Anonychuk & Andrea Tricco & Chris Bauch & Ba’ Pham & Vladimir Gilca & Bernard Duval & Ava John-Baptiste & Gloria Woo & Murray Krahn, 2008. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Hepatitis A Vaccine," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 17-32, January.
    7. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    8. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    9. Hwa-Young Lee & Thuy Thi-Thu Nguyen & Saeun Park & Van Minh Hoang & Woong-Han Kim, 2021. "Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    10. Legood, Rosa & Wolstenholme, Jane & Gray, Alastair, 2009. "From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 193-200, February.
    11. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Eddy Adang, 2012. "Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 223-226, June.
    12. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
    13. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    14. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    15. Michael Drummond, 2012. "Economic Evaluation and Decision-makers," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 54, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    17. James Mason & Martin Eccles & Nick Freemantle & Mike Drummond, 1998. "NICEly does it: economic analysis within evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Working Papers 164chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Duthie, Tessa & Trueman, Paul & Chancellor, Jeremy & Diez, Lara, 1999. "Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II: Is health economics `for good or evil'?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-157, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:583-595. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.