IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v7y1998i2p129-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost‐effectiveness of preference‐based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Sculpher

Abstract

Typically, economic evaluation compares the costs and benefits of two or more interventions and seeks to identify the single superior option on the basis of relative cost‐effectiveness. It is then anticipated that all patients will receive the more or most cost‐effective option. This ‘all or nothing’ approach can be departed from when sub‐groups of patient exist, defined on the basis of clinical or demographic characteristics which are considered to influence benefit, for whom an option is cost‐effective whilst not being so for the population of patients as a whole. However, patients' preferences concerning the different process characteristics and outcomes of an intervention will also influence the benefit they derive from health care. This paper explores the concept of preference‐based sub‐group analysis in economic evaluation to assess the potential cost‐effectiveness of using patients' preferences to determine treatment allocation. The clinical example used to explore these methods is the comparison of abdominal hysterectomy (AH) and transcervical resection of the endometrial (TCRE) for the treatment of menorrhagia. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Sculpher, 1998. "The cost‐effectiveness of preference‐based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 129-142, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:2:p:129-142
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199803)7:2<129::AID-HEC332>3.0.CO;2-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199803)7:23.0.CO;2-9
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199803)7:2<129::AID-HEC332>3.0.CO;2-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & McKenzie, Lynda, 1989. "The use of QALYs in health care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-308, January.
    2. Johannesson, Magnus, 1994. "QALYs, HYEs and individual preferences-- A graphical illustration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 1623-1632, December.
    3. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    4. Joseph S. Pliskin & Donald S. Shepard & Milton C. Weinstein, 1980. "Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 206-224, February.
    5. Robert F. Nease & Douglas K. Owens, 1994. "A Method for Estimating the Cost- Effectiveness of Incorporating Patient Preferences into Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 382-392, October.
    6. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    7. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    8. 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.
    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. Peter Zweifel & H. E. Frech, 2016. "Why ‘Optimal’ Payment for Healthcare Providers Can Never be Optimal Under Community Rating," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 9-20, February.
    2. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.

    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. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    2. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    3. James K. Hammitt, 2002. "QALYs Versus WTP," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 985-1001, October.
    4. José Mª Abellán & José Luis Pinto & Ildefonso Méndez & Xabier Badía, 2004. "A test of the predictive validity of non-linear QALY models using time trade-off utilities," Economics Working Papers 741, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    5. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    6. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. Bleichrodt, Han, 1997. "Health utility indices and equity considerations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-91, February.
    8. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1997. "QALYs and HYEs Spotting the differences," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 601-608, October.
    9. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Göran Karlsson, 1996. "Outcome measurement in economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 279-296, July.
    10. Peter P. Wakker & Sylvia J. T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2004. "Anchor Levels as a New Tool for the Theory and Measurement of Multiattribute Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 217-234, December.
    11. Ried, Walter, 1998. "QALYs versus HYEs--what's right and what's wrong. A review of the controversy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 607-625, October.
    12. Ried, Walter, 1996. "QALYs versus HYEs - What's Right and What's Wrong," Discussion Papers 544, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.
    13. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    14. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    15. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    16. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    18. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    19. Karen Gerard & Gavin Mooney, 1993. "Qaly league tables: Handle with care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 59-64, April.
    20. Meltzer, David, 1997. "Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 33-64, February.

    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:7:y:1998:i:2:p:129-142. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.