IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvrp/1938.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A new outcome measure for cost-utility analyses of screening programs

Author

Listed:
  • HERRERO, Carmen
  • MORENO-TERNERO, Juan D.

Abstract

In this paper we provide a new outcome measure for the cost-utility analyses of alternative screening programs of a particular disease. We show that for non-invasive screening programs satisfying plausible assumptions, QALYs can be replaced by a simpler outcome: the sensitivity of the program. In other words, the cost-utility analysis can be made without computing the utility each program offers. Consequently, results would be immune to two of the most controversial issues in the cost-utility analysis approach: the elicitation method to obtain quality weights of health profiles, and the discount rate for future health benefits. The assumptions are particularly suitable in the case of selecting between the universal and the selective implementation of a non-invasive screening program. Therefore, we apply our result to provide an additional viewpoint in the current debate about the implementation of a universal or selective newborn screening program to detect congenital hearing impairment.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • HERRERO, Carmen & MORENO-TERNERO, Juan D., 2005. "A new outcome measure for cost-utility analyses of screening programs," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1938, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:1938
    Note: In : Economics Bulletin, 9(7), 1-8, 2005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Johannesson, Magnus & Weinstein, Milton C., 1993. "On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 459-467, December.
    3. Carmen Herrero & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2005. "Hospital costs and social cost: A case study of newborn hearing screening," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(1), pages 203-216, January.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han & Gafni, Amiram, 1996. "Time preference, the discounted utility model and health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 49-66, February.
    5. Marjon M. Van Der Pol & John A. Cairns, 2000. "Negative and zero time preference for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 171-175, March.
    6. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 1992. "Cost effectiveness/utility analyses : Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 279-296, October.
    7. 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.
    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. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    2. Carmen Herrero & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2005. "Hospital costs and social cost: A case study of newborn hearing screening," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 29(1), pages 203-216, January.

    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:9:y:2005:i:7:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero, 2008. "Opportunity analysis of newborn screening programs," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 12(4), pages 259-277, December.
    3. Linda D. MacKeigan & Amiram Gafni & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2003. "Double discounting of QALYs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 165-169, February.
    4. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    5. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    6. Morton, Alec, 2014. "Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-173.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2009. "The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 234-243, January.
    8. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2008. "Longevity bias in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 523-534, April.
    9. Elamin H. Elbasha & Mark L. Messonnier, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis and health care resource allocation: decision rules under variable returns to scale," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 21-35, January.
    10. Hoel, Michael, 2009. "Efficient use of health care resources: The interaction between improved health and reduced health related income loss," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2001:9, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    11. Lindholm, Lars & Hallgren, C. -G. & Boman, Kurt & Markgren, Kenth & Weinehall, Lars & Ogren, J. -E., 1999. "Cost-effectiveness analysis with defined budget: how to distribute resources for the prevention of cardiovascular disease?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 155-170, August.
    12. Joanne Lord & George Laking & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "Non‐linearity in the cost‐effectiveness frontier," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 565-577, June.
    13. Benjamin M. Craig, 2009. "The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 217-225, February.
    14. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    15. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251, April.
    16. Stinnett, Aaron A. & Paltiel, A. David, 1996. "Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 641-653, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Pedram Sendi, 2008. "Bridging the gap between health and non-health investments: moving from cost-effectiveness analysis to a return on investment approach across sectors of economy," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 113-121, June.
    19. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. Kirwin, Erin & Meacock, Rachel & Round, Jeff & Sutton, Matt, 2022. "The diagonal approach: A theoretic framework for the economic evaluation of vertical and horizontal interventions in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    21. Morton, Alec & Thomas, Ranjeeta & Smith, Peter C., 2016. "Decision rules for allocation of finances to health systems strengthening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 97-108.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:cor:louvrp:1938. 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: Alain GILLIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.html .

    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.