An economic perspective on policy to reduce antimicrobial resistance
Resistance to antimicrobial drugs is increasing worldwide. This resistance is, at least in part, associated with high antimicrobial usage. Despite increasing awareness, economists (and policy analysts more generally) have paid little attention to the problem. In this paper antimicrobial resistance is conceptualised as a negative externality associated with the consumption of antimicrobials and is set within the broader context of the costs and benefits associated with antimicrobial usage. It is difficult to determine the overall impact of attempting to reduce resistance, given the extremely limited ability to model the epidemiology of resistant and sensitive micro-organisms. It is assumed for the purposes of the paper, however, that dealing with resistance by reducting antimicrobial usage would lead to a positive societal benefit. Three policy options traditionally associated with environmental economics (regulation, permits and charges) are examined in relation to their potential ability to impact upon the problem of resistance. The primary care sector of the U.K.'s National Health Service provides the context for this examination. Simple application of these policies to health care is likely to be problematic, with difficulties resulting particularly from the potential reduction in clinical freedom to prescribe when appropriate, and from the desire for equity in health care provision. The paper tentatively concludes that permits could offer the best policy response to antimicrobial resistance, with the caveat that empirical research is needed to develop the most practical and efficient system. This research must be conducted alongside the required epidemiological research.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 46 (1998)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|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|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ger Klaassen & David Pearce, 1995. "Introduction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 85-93, March.
- Michael Grossman, 1972. "The Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gros72-1, September.
- Halkos, George, 1993. "Economic incentives for optimal sulphur abatement in Europe," MPRA Paper 33705, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Tietenberg, T H, 1990. "Economic Instruments for Environmental Regulation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 17-33, Spring.
- Halkos, George E., 1993. "Sulphur abatement policy: Implications of cost differentials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(10), pages 1035-1043, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:1:p:29-38. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.