IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v27y2018i1p102-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fairness in cost‐benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Anne‐Laure Samson
  • Erik Schokkaert
  • Clémence Thébaut
  • Brigitte Dormont
  • Marc Fleurbaey
  • Stéphane Luchini
  • Carine Van de Voorde

Abstract

We evaluate the introduction of various forms of antihypertensive treatments in France with a distribution‐sensitive cost‐benefit analysis. Compared to traditional cost‐benefit analysis, we implement distributional weighting based on equivalent incomes, a new concept of individual well‐being that does respect individual preferences but is not subjectively welfarist. Individual preferences are estimated on the basis of a contingent valuation question, introduced into a representative survey of the French population. Compared to traditional cost‐effectiveness analysis in health technology assessment, we show that it is feasible to go beyond a narrow evaluation of health outcomes while still fully exploiting the sophistication of medical information. Sensitivity analysis illustrates the relevancy of this richer welfare framework, the importance of the distinction between an ex ante and an ex post approach, and the need to consider distributional effects in a broader institutional setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne‐Laure Samson & Erik Schokkaert & Clémence Thébaut & Brigitte Dormont & Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Carine Van de Voorde, 2018. "Fairness in cost‐benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 102-114, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:102-114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3515
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aurélie Pierre & Florence Jusot & Denis Raynaud & Carine Franc, 2018. "Généralisation de la complémentaire santé d’entreprise. Une évaluation ex ante des gains et des pertes de bien-être," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(3), pages 407-441.
    2. Brigitte Dormont & Anne-Laure Samson & Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Erik Schokkaert, 2018. "Individual Uncertainty About Longevity," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(5), pages 1829-1854, October.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:102-114. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.