IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v39y1994i1p7-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:1:p:7-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90162-7
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. Pope, Robin, 2004. "Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 695-735, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1997. "QALYs and HYEs Spotting the differences," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 601-608, October.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    14. Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto, Jose Luis & Maria Abellan-Perpinan, Jose, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1037-1052, November.
    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. 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.
    18. 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.

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.