IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Economic Evaluation of Health-care Programmes: Is CEA Better than CBA?

  • Amiram Gafni

    ()

Registered author(s):

    It has been noted earlier that during the same period that the contingent valuation (CV) method evolved and became the most commonly used method of valuing environmental projects, the development in health economics was instead been towards cost–effectiveness analysis (CEA). Recently there has been a growing interest in the use of CEA, where QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years) are used as a measure of effectiveness, as the method of evaluation for environmental projects. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question – is CEA a superior method to CBA (both theoretically and empirically) to provide information to decision makers for use in decisions on resource allocation in health. The paper deals with the following topics: the underlying theoretical foundation for CEA; is CEA free of income distribution considerations?; is QALY a superior measure to WTP?; the usefulness of incremental CE ratio (ICER) to determine resource allocation. The paper concludes that there is neither theoretical nor practical support for the claim about the superiority of CEA. Copyright Springer 2006

    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.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-006-0008-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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.

    Article provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2006)
    Issue (Month): 3 (July)
    Pages: 407-418

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:3:p:407-418
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997. "Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    2. 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.
    3. Bleichrodt, Han, 1995. "QALYs and HYEs: Under what conditions are they equivalent?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 17-37, May.
    4. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Weinstein, Milton & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1973. "Critical ratios and efficient allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 147-157, April.
    7. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt, 1991. "Economic evaluation in health care: Is there a role for cost-benefit analysis?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Weinstein, Milton C. & Manning, Willard Jr., 1997. "Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 121-128, February.
    9. Blomqvist, Ake, 2002. "QALYs, standard gambles, and the expected budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 181-195, March.
    10. Wagstaff, Adam, 1991. "QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 21-41, May.
    11. Culyer, Anthony J. & Evans, Robert G., 1996. "Mark Pauly on welfare economics: Normative rabbits from positive hats," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 243-251, April.
    12. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard, 2002. "Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 827-843, September.
    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. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1995. "Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: An economic approach to addressing economic problems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 767-776, March.
    15. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1993. "Changing the problem to fit the solution: Johannesson and Weinstein's (mis) application of economics to real world problems," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 469-476, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:34:y:2006:i:3:p:407-418. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.