Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints: Is it equitable?

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 334, Issue 18, 1996, Pages 1174-1177

  Ubel, Peter A ^a,b,c,e   Dekay, Michael L ^a,c,d   Baron, Jonathan ^c   Asch, David A ^a,b,c  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e Center for Bioethics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST;

ALTERNATIVES; CANCER; CLINICAL APPROACH/SOURCE; COSTS AND BENEFITS; DECISION ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; INDIGENTS; JUSTICE; MEDICAID; PHILADELPHIA; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SELECTION FOR TREATMENT; SURVEY; UNITED STATES;

COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; ETHICISTS; ETHICS, MEDICAL; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT SELECTION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 0029979686     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199605023341807     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Eddy DM Clinical decision making: from theory to practice: cost-effectiveness analysis a conversation with my father. JAMA 1992;267:1669-75.
2. Johannesson M. On the estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Policy 1995;31.225-9.
3. Avorn J Benefit and cost analysis in geriatric care: turning age discrimination into health policy. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1294-301
4. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991;265:2218-25
5. Emery DD, Schneiderman LJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Hastings Cent Rep 1989;19(4):8-13.
6. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public Soc Sci Med (in press).
7. Idem. Public perceptions of the importance of prognosis in allocating transplantable hvers to children. Med Decis Making (in press).
8. Idem. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes Health Policy 1995,34:145-51.
9. Rohrbaugh J, McClelland G, Quinn R. Measuring the relative importance of utilitarian and egalitarian values: a study of individual differences about fair distribution. J Appl Psychol 1980;65.34-49
10. Ross J. The use of economic evaluation in health care. Australian decision makers' perceptions Health Policy 1995;31:103-10.
11. Ubel PA, Scanlon D, Loewenstein G, et al. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Making (in press)
12. Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Technol Assess 1993,9:463-78.
13. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy 1993,24:45-53.
14. Cantor SB Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics: a quantitative assessment Med Decis Making 1994;14:259-65.
15. Crawshaw R, Garland MJ, Hines B, Lobitz C. Oregon health decisions: an experiment with informed community consent. JAMA 1985;254.3213-6.
16. Hadorn DC. The role of public values in setting health care priorities. Soc Sci Med 1991;32:773-81
17. Garland MJ Justice, politics and community: expanding access and rationing health services in Oregon. Law Med Health Care 1992,20:67-81
18. Baron J. Blind justice: fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. J Behav Decis Making 1995;8:71-83.
19. Idem. Thinking and deciding. 2nd ed Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1994
20. Nord E. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients J Med Ethics 1993,19.37-42
21. Baron J. Heuristics and biases in equity judgments: a utilitarian approach. In Mellers BA, Baron J, eds Psychological perspectives of justice: theory and applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1993:109-37.
22. Idem. The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol 1992;63:320-30.