IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/respap/001764.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uncertainty and Risk in HTA Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Barnsley, P.
  • Cubi-Molla, P.
  • Fischer, A.
  • Towse, A.

Abstract

The quality of decision-making in key public sector bodies dealing with resource allocation is a major determinant of their efficiency. One of the most difficult and contentious areas of decision-making is the way that uncertainty is dealt with. This report is concerned with uncertainty as it affects the cost effectiveness aspects of health technology assessment (HTA). It includes a review of the policy documents governing cost benefit analysis and cost effectiveness analysis in respect of HTA in England and Wales, and the results of interviews with former decision makers at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Suggested Citation

  • Barnsley, P. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Fischer, A. & Towse, A., 2016. "Uncertainty and Risk in HTA Decision Making," Research Papers 001764, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:respap:001764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/POI%20Uncertainty_Research%20paper%2030%20Nov%202016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    2. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg re-revisited: An experiment disentangling model uncertainty and risk aversion," Working Papers 576, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    3. 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.
    4. Larry G. Epstein, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608.
    5. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    8. Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Louis Niessen & Maarten Postma & Frans Rutten, 2007. "Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 307-317.
    9. Susan C. Griffin & Karl P. Claxton & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2011. "Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 212-224, February.
    10. Arrow, Kenneth J & Lind, Robert C, 1970. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 364-378, June.
    11. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 2001. "Any Non-welfarist Method of Policy Assessment Violates the Pareto Principle," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(2), pages 281-286, April.
    12. Barnsley, P. & Towse, A. & Karlsberg Schaffer, S. & Sussex, J., 2013. "Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold," Occasional Papers 000106, Office of Health Economics.
    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. Marsden, G. & Towse, A., 2017. "Exploring the Assessment and Appraisal of Regenerative Medicines and Cell Therapy Products: Is the NICE Approach Fit for Purpose?," Consulting Reports 001802, Office of Health Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Judging value for money and improving decision making;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:respap:001764. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.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 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.

    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.