IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Understanding Harris’ understanding of CEA: is cost effective resource allocation undone?

Listed author(s):
  • Richard Edlin


    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Christopher McCabe

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Jeff Round

    (Division of Population Health, University College London)

  • Judy Wright

    (Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds)

  • Karl Claxton

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

  • Mark Sculpher

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York)

  • Richard Cookson

    (Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York)

Harris has been a vocal critic of CEA and the QALY for over 20 years. In this paper we attempt to summarise and evaluate both Harris’ criticisms of CEA and the alternative procedures he commends to health care decision makers. Harris’ basic position is that all health benefits are indivisible and, unless a strong argument can be made, of equal worth. He argues individuals have a right to treatment that cannot be denied by a decision maker on the basis of their ability to benefit and therefore that life saving treatments dominate life enhancing treatments in all circumstances, regardless of the QALY benefits in both cases. In this paper we review Harris’ arguments against the use of CEA and QALYs and critically appraise his suggestions for alternative approaches to health care resource allocation. We conclude that whilst his work has challenged the proponents of CEA and QALYs to be explicit about the method’s discriminatory characteristics, his arguments are largely based upon the flawed assumptions that lives can be saved, rather than death postponed; and that opportunity cost can be sidestepped by attempting to impose the same outcome for all.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2010
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1005.

in new window

Length: 13 pages
Date of creation: 2010
Publication status: Published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, Jan 2013, Volume 18 no 1 pages 34-39
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1005
Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61, pages 434-434.
  2. 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.
  3. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309-309.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1005. 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: (Judy Wright)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.