IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02302587.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Anne-Laure Samson

    (LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, Legos - Laboratoire d'Economie et de Gestion des Organisations de Santé - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres)

  • Erik Schokkaert

    (CORE - Center of Operation Research and Econometrics [Louvain] - UCL - Université Catholique de Louvain = Catholic University of Louvain)

  • Clémence Thebaut

    (LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, OMIJ - Observatoire des Mutations Institutionnelles et Juridiques - GIO - Gouvernance des Institutions et des Organisations - UNILIM - Université de Limoges, HAS - Haute Autorité de Santé [Saint-Denis La Plaine])

  • Brigitte Dormont

    (LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, Legos - Laboratoire d'Economie et de Gestion des Organisations de Santé - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres)

  • Marc Fleurbaey

    (WWSPIL - Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs - Princeton University)

  • Stéphane Luchini

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Karine van de Voorde

    (KU Leuven - Catholic University of Leuven = Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

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 Thebaut & Brigitte Dormont & Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Karine van de Voorde, 2018. "Fairness in cost-benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment," Post-Print hal-02302587, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02302587
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3515
    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
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, treatment, and palliative care: The relative value of health improvements under alternative evaluation frameworks," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Victor Champonnois & Olivier Chanel, 2023. "Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(5), pages 1037-1060, April.
    3. An, Yuulin & Chin, Sayorn & Miller, Ray, 2025. "Growing old in rural America: Measuring late-life health and economic well-being," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    4. Marko Ledić & Ivica Rubil, 2021. "Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 523-561, June.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & L'Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2023. "Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    6. Denis Fougère & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social," Working Papers hal-03456048, HAL.
    7. Marko Ledic & Ivica Rubil, 2020. "Does going beyond income make a difference? Income vs. equivalent income in the EU over 2007-2011," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 44(4), pages 423-462.
    8. 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.
    9. DA COSTA Shaun Mark, 2025. "Composite indices and preference-based measures of wellbeing," JRC Research Reports JRC141107, Joint Research Centre.
    10. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809258uvvpjn34ekm4 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-02302587. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.