Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2011

Open Access 01-08-2011 | Editorial

What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?

Authors: Martin J. Buxton, James D. Chambers

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Excerpt

For most economists working in the field of health care, particularly those working on the economic evaluation of health technologies, the logic of being concerned about the relative effectiveness of competing interventions and the opportunity cost of the resources involved is instinctive. Difficult choices have to be made within the inevitably limited resources available to publicly funded (and indeed private insurance-based) health care provision. It is an easy step then to suggest one should maximise the utility of a population within the constraints of a predetermined budget or at politically acceptable future cost. For many economists, though not all, it requires only two small steps to move from utility maximisation, to health maximisation and then to operationalise that as QALY maximisation. And, some key reimbursement and/or coverage authorities have bought into that argument as a logical, operational definition of their mandate. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Liljas, B.: On the theoretic foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis—the case when survival is not affected. Eur J Health Econ 11(1), 5–13 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Liljas, B.: On the theoretic foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis—the case when survival is not affected. Eur J Health Econ 11(1), 5–13 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Breyer, F.: On the welfare theoretic foundations of CEA: comment. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 595–596 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Breyer, F.: On the welfare theoretic foundations of CEA: comment. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 595–596 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Liljas, B.: Cost-effectiveness analysis, welfare economics and the societal perspective: a reply. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 597–598 (2010)CrossRef Liljas, B.: Cost-effectiveness analysis, welfare economics and the societal perspective: a reply. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 597–598 (2010)CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brouwer, W.B., Culyer, A.J., van Exel, N.J., Rutten, F.F.: Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 27(2), 325–338 (2008)PubMed Brouwer, W.B., Culyer, A.J., van Exel, N.J., Rutten, F.F.: Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 27(2), 325–338 (2008)PubMed
5.
go back to reference Hutton, J., McGrath, C., Frybourg, J.-M., Tremblay, M., Bramley-Harker, E., Henshall, C.: Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22(1), 10–18 (2006)PubMedCrossRef Hutton, J., McGrath, C., Frybourg, J.-M., Tremblay, M., Bramley-Harker, E., Henshall, C.: Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22(1), 10–18 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Department of Health: New technology for the health service. Press release of speech by Frank Dobson, Secretary of State for Health. 15th February 1999, # 1999/0086 Department of Health: New technology for the health service. Press release of speech by Frank Dobson, Secretary of State for Health. 15th February 1999, # 1999/0086
7.
go back to reference Chaldikou, K., Walley, T.: Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10), 799–811 (2010)CrossRef Chaldikou, K., Walley, T.: Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10), 799–811 (2010)CrossRef
9.
go back to reference US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(10), 716–726, W-236 (2009) US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(10), 716–726, W-236 (2009)
11.
go back to reference Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J.: Listening to provenge—what a costly cancer treatment says about medicare policy on new technology. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(18), 1687–1689 (2011) Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J.: Listening to provenge—what a costly cancer treatment says about medicare policy on new technology. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(18), 1687–1689 (2011)
12.
go back to reference Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J., Buxton, M.J.: Does medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med. Decis. Making 30(4), E14–E27 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J., Buxton, M.J.: Does medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med. Decis. Making 30(4), E14–E27 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pouvourville, G.: A French approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11, 521–523 (2010)PubMedCrossRef Pouvourville, G.: A French approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11, 521–523 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Guttman, N., Shalev, C., Kaplan, G., Abulafia, A., Bin-Nun, G., Goffer, R., Ben-Moshe, R., Tal, O., Shani, M., Lev, B.: What should be given a priority—costly medications for relatively few people or expensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation in Israel. Health Expect. 11, 177–188 (2008)PubMedCrossRef Guttman, N., Shalev, C., Kaplan, G., Abulafia, A., Bin-Nun, G., Goffer, R., Ben-Moshe, R., Tal, O., Shani, M., Lev, B.: What should be given a priority—costly medications for relatively few people or expensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation in Israel. Health Expect. 11, 177–188 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ratcliffe, R., Buxton, M., Young, T., Longworth, L.: Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 4(4), 249–255 (2005)PubMedCrossRef Ratcliffe, R., Buxton, M., Young, T., Longworth, L.: Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 4(4), 249–255 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lancsar, E., Wildman, J.C., Donaldson, C., Ryan, M., Baker, R.: Deriving distributional weights from QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30, 466–478 (2011)PubMedCrossRef Lancsar, E., Wildman, J.C., Donaldson, C., Ryan, M., Baker, R.: Deriving distributional weights from QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30, 466–478 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18, S951–S976 (2009)CrossRef Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18, S951–S976 (2009)CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dolan, P., Cookson, R., Ferguson, B.: Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 318(7188), 916–919 (1999)PubMed Dolan, P., Cookson, R., Ferguson, B.: Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 318(7188), 916–919 (1999)PubMed
21.
go back to reference Sabik, L.M., Reidar, K.L.: Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7(4), (2008) Sabik, L.M., Reidar, K.L.: Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7(4), (2008)
22.
go back to reference Coast, J.: Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 329, 1233–1236 (2004)PubMedCrossRef Coast, J.: Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 329, 1233–1236 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?
Authors
Martin J. Buxton
James D. Chambers
Publication date
01-08-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0320-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2011 Go to the issue