IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/100541.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Striving for a societal perspective: a framework for economic evaluations when costs and effects fall on multiple sectors and decision-makers

Author

Listed:
  • Walker, S.
  • Griffin, Susan
  • Asaria, Miqdad
  • Tsuchyia, Aki
  • Sculpher, Mark

Abstract

In most societies, resources are distributed by individuals acting in markets and by governments through some form of collective decision-making process. Economic evaluation offers a set of tools to inform collective decisions by examining the resource requirements and outcomes of alternative policies. The ‘societal perspective’ has been advocated, but less consideration has been given to what this should include and its practical implementation. This paper presents a framework for economic evaluation of policies with costs and outcomes falling on different sectors (e.g. health, criminal justice, education) and involving different decision makers. It extends the ‘impact inventory’ developed by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine by considering all affected individuals and reflecting how outcomes attributed to an intervention can be compared with outcomes forgone as a result of resources not being available for other purposes. The framework sets out the series of assessments to be made, distinguishing points at which value judgements feed into the evaluation, and the implications of alternative judgements. These assessments reflect the institutional arrangements of public bodies, for example, their funding, the outcomes they consider important and their relative valuations of these outcomes. By avoiding the use of an abstract ‘societal perspective’, the contribution of the framework is to inform multiple decision makers with different objectives and provide practical guidance on overall societal impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Walker, S. & Griffin, Susan & Asaria, Miqdad & Tsuchyia, Aki & Sculpher, Mark, 2019. "Striving for a societal perspective: a framework for economic evaluations when costs and effects fall on multiple sectors and decision-makers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100541, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:100541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100541/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. 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.
    3. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2015. "Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 557-565, December.
    4. Laura Catherine Edney & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Terence Chai Cheng & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, February.
    5. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2013. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes," Working Papers 091cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Sugden, Robert & Williams, Alan, 1978. "The Principles of Practical Cost-Benefit Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198770411.
    7. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    8. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    9. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Opportunity costs, marginal productivity, and cost-effectiveness thresholds: what are they and how are they related?
      by Rita Faria, Jessica Ochalek, jameslomas88 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-09-23 06:00:00

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Basu, Anirban, 2020. "A welfare-theoretic model consistent with the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and its implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    3. William V. Padula & Hui-Han Chen & Charles E. Phelps, 2021. "Is the Choice of Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Cost-Utility Analysis Endogenous to the Resulting Value of Technology? A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 155-162, March.
    4. Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2020. "After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 247-257, March.
    5. Baudouin Standaert & Christophe Sauboin & Quentin J. Leclerc & Mark P. Connolly, 2021. "Comparing the Analysis and Results of a Modified Social Accounting Matrix Framework with Conventional Methods of Reporting Indirect Non-Medical Costs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 257-269, February.
    6. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Mickael Hiligsmann & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Leonarda G. M. Bremmers, 2021. "The Relative Importance of Education and Criminal Justice Costs and Benefits in Economic Evaluations: A Best–Worst Scaling Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 99-108, January.
    7. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2021. "Taking a local government perspective for economic evaluation of a population-level programme to promote exercise," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 651-657.
    8. Jonathan Karnon & Brita Pekarsky, 2020. "Should Health Economic Evaluations Undertaken from a Societal Perspective Include Net Government Spending Multiplier Effects?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 467-475, August.

    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. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & Anthony J. Culyer, 2018. "Does MCDA Trump CEA?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 147-151, April.
    2. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    3. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    4. Dolly Han & Nicolas Iragorri & Fiona Clement & Diane Lorenzetti & Eldon Spackman, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Chronic Constipation: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 435-449, April.
    5. Jessica Ochalek & Karl Claxton & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Alexandra Rollinger, 2016. "Supporting the development of an essential health package: principles and initial assessment for Malawi," Working Papers 136cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Francesco Ramponi & Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Steve Parrott & Colin Drummond & Paolo Deluca & Simon Coulton & Mona Kanaan & Gerry Richardson, 2021. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis of public health interventions with impacts on health and criminal justice: An applied cross‐sectoral analysis of an alcohol misuse intervention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 972-988, May.
    7. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    8. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    9. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    10. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    11. Niek Stadhouders & Xander Koolman & Christel van Dijk & Patrick Jeurissen & Eddy Adang, 2019. "The marginal benefits of healthcare spending in the Netherlands: Estimating cost‐effectiveness thresholds using a translog production function," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1331-1344, November.
    12. John Graves & Shawn Garbett & Zilu Zhou & Jonathan S. Schildcrout & Josh Peterson, 2021. "Comparison of Decision Modeling Approaches for Health Technology and Policy Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 453-464, May.
    13. Miqdad Asaria, 2017. "Health care costs in the English NHS: reference tables for average annual NHS spend by age, sex and deprivation group," Working Papers 147cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Susan Griffin & Francesco Fusco & Bhash Naidoo & Matthew Taylor & Simon Walker, 2020. "Does Health Technology Assessment guidance give adequate consideration to decisions about less costly and less effective alternatives?," Working Papers 175cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. van Baal, Pieter & Morton, Alec & Severens, Johan L., 2018. "Health care input constraints and cost effectiveness analysis decision rules," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 59-64.
    16. Jonathan Siverskog & Martin Henriksson, 2019. "Estimating the marginal cost of a life year in Sweden’s public healthcare sector," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(5), pages 751-762, July.
    17. Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2020. "After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 247-257, March.
    18. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    19. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    20. Murphy, Richard & Weinhardt, Felix & Wyness, Gill, 2021. "Who teaches the teachers? A RCT of peer-to-peer observation and feedback in 181 schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic evaluation; impact inventory; health and medicine; assessments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:100541. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.