The interpretation of results of economic evaluation: Explicating the value of health

Health Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 625-635

  Ament, Andre ^a   Baltussen, Rob ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision rules; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIETY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG THERAPY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 0031463679     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<625::AID-HEC309>3.0.CO;2-O     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L. and Torrance, G. W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
2. Weinstein, M. C., From cost-effectiveness ratios to resource allocation: where to draw the line? In Sloan, F. A. (ed.). Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
3. Thompson, M. Decision Analysis for Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1982.
4. Anderson, J. Policy space areas and properties of benefit-costs/utility analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 1986; 255: 794-795.
5. Steinbach, J. H. and Hardison, W. G. M. Comparing health care options using the cost-benefit utility ratio. Journal of the American Medical Association 1986; 255: 747-748.
6. Kamlet, M. S. The Comparative Benefits Modeling Project: a Framework for Cost-Utility Analysis of Government Health Care Programs. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.
7. Rittenhouse, B. E. Potential inconsistencies between cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses: an upstairs/downstairs socioeconomic distinction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1995; 11: 365-337.
8. Baumol, W. S. Economic Theory and Operations Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
9. Birch S. and Donaldson C. Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care: departures from the welfare economic theory. Journal of Health Economics 1987; 6: 211-225.
10. Birch, S. and Gafni, A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? Journal of Health Economics 1992; 11: 279-296.
11. Mishan E. J. Cost-Benefit Analysis: an Informal Introduction. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982.
12. Keeler E. B. and Cretin S. Uses of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Health Economics 1987; 6: 275-278.
13. Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsky, A. S. and Tugwell, P. X. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1992; 146: 473-481.
14. Gafni, A. and Birch, D. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1993; 148: 913-917.
15. Weinstein, M. C. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1990; 6: 93-107.
16. Ament, A. Optimal Use of Diagnostic Tests: a Decision Analytical Approach. Delft: Eburon, 1989.
17. Phelps, C. E. and Mushlin, A. I. On the (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1991; 7: 12-21.
18. Johannesson, M. and Weinstein, M. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Health Economics 1993; 12: 459-467.
19. Schechter, C, Rose, D., Fahs, M. and Silver, A. Tuberculine screening: cost-effectiveness analysis of various testing schedules. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1990; 3: 167-175.
20. Babazona, A. and Hillman, A. Declining cost-effectiveness of screening for disease: the case of gastric cancer in Japan. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1995; 11: 354-364.
21. Lindfors, K. and Rosenquist, J. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 11: 881-884.
22. Perras, C. and Otten, N. Pharmaceutical management of peptic ulcer disease. Technology Overview: Pharmaceuticals, 1996; Issue 3: 1.
23. Siegel, I, Weinstein, M., Russell, L. and Gold, M. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 276: 1339-1341.