The Interpretation of results of economic evaluation: explicating the value of health
AbstractTheoretically it can be proven that an optimal allocation of resources within a constrained budget can be reached by considering cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs). In this paper, the complex priority setting process regarding compatible and incompatible alternatives of medical interventions is clarified. Priority setting in the context of compatible alternatives may refer to the selection of more than one, possibly all, alternatives. Inherent to a set of incompatible alternatives is that only one alternative can be selected. This latter situation frequently occurs in health care. The value that society attaches to a unit of effectiveness (e.g. a QALY) has an important impact on the priority ranking of medical interventions. By explicating this value and by using the 'net-value' approach, a graphical framework is presented that allows decision-makers a better understanding on the impact of particular levels of these values on their optimal policy choices. For illustrative purposes, it is shown that by the erroneous application of decision rules, some recent papers have provided sub-optimal recommendations for health care policy. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.
Volume (Year): 6 (1997)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Andrew Willan, 2011. "Sample Size Determination for Cost-Effectiveness Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 933-949, November.
- Joanne Lord & George Laking & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "Non-linearity in the cost-effectiveness frontier," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 565-577.
- George Laking & Joanne Lord & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "The economics of diagnosis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1109-1120.
- Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251.
- Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475.
- Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.