IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v54y2000i2p125-141.html

Cost implications of routine mammography screening of women 50-69 years in the County of Funen, Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Bech, Mickael
  • Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Bech, Mickael & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2000. "Cost implications of routine mammography screening of women 50-69 years in the County of Funen, Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 125-141, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:54:y:2000:i:2:p:125-141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(00)00104-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Szeto, Kam Leong & Devlin, Nancy J., 1996. "The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 101-115, November.
    2. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    3. David Meltzer, 1997. "Accounting for Future Costs in Medical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Working Papers 5946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Garber, Alan M. & Phelps, Charles E., 1997. "Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, February.
    5. Koopmanschap, Marc A. & van Ineveld, B. Martin & Miltenburg, Theo E. M., 1992. "Costs of home care for advanced breast and cervical cancer in relation to cost-effectiveness of screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 979-985, October.
    6. Hall, Jane & Gerard, Karen & Salkeld, Glenn & Richardson, Jeff, 1992. "A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 993-1004, May.
    7. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Holund, Berit & Andersen, Per, 1995. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening: health policy implications," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 35-51, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel E. Jonas & Louise B. Russell & Jon Chou & Michael Pignone, 2010. "Willingness‐to‐pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1193-1211, October.
    2. Tron A. Moger & Gudrun M. W. Bjørnelv & Eline Aas, 2016. "Expected 10-year treatment cost of breast cancer detected within and outside a public screening program in Norway," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(6), pages 745-754, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2008. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1224-1236, September.
    2. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    3. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    4. Cutler, David M., 2007. "The lifetime costs and benefits of medical technology," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1081-1100, December.
    5. Calcott, Paul, 2000. "Health care evaluation, utilitarianism and distortionary taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 719-730, September.
    6. Joel Thompson & Amir Abdolahi & Katia Noyes, 2013. "Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 455-469, June.
    7. Basu, Anirban & Meltzer, David, 2005. "Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 751-773, July.
    8. Braden Manns & David Meltzer & Ken Taub & Cam Donaldson, 2003. "Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end‐stage renal disease care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 949-958, November.
    9. Philipson Tomas J & Jena Anupam B, 2006. "Who Benefits from New Medical Technologies? Estimates of Consumer and Producer Surpluses for HIV/AIDS Drugs," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-33, January.
    10. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    11. Basu, Anirban, 2020. "A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Johan J. Polder & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2011. "Economic evaluation and the postponement of health care costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 432-445, April.
    13. Kenkel, Don, 1997. "On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis, and being rude," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 749-757, December.
    14. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2008. "Longevity bias in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 523-534, April.
    15. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1999. "Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 681-708, December.
    16. Dieter Tscheulin & Florian Drevs, 2010. "The relevance of unrelated costs internal and external to the healthcare sector to the outcome of a cost-comparison analysis of secondary prevention: the case of general colorectal cancer screening in," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 141-150, April.
    17. Ruth Etzioni & Scott D. Ramsey & Kristin Berry & Martin Brown, 2001. "The impact of including future medical care costs when estimating the costs attributable to a disease: a colorectal cancer case study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 245-256, April.
    18. Thomas Klose, 2003. "A utility‐theoretic model for QALYs and willingness to pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 17-31, January.
    19. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. Joshua Graff Zivin, 2001. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis with risk aversion," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 499-508, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hepoli:v:54:y:2000:i:2:p:125-141. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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 or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.