Equity weights in the allocation of health care: The rank-dependent QALY model

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 157-171

  Bleichrodt, Han ^a   Diecidue, Enrico ^b   Quiggin, John ^c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b INSEAD   (Singapore)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Equity; QALYs; Rank dependence; Social welfare

Indexed keywords

EQUITY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH POLICY; QUALITY OF LIFE;

COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MODEL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SOCIAL WELFARE;

EID: 1042266290     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Allais, M., 1953. Fondements d'une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Américaine. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 40, Econométrie 257-332. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Translated into English, with additions, as The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American school. In: M. Allais, O. Hagen (1979, Eds.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 27-145.
2. Atkinson A.B., On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory. 2:1970;244-263.
3. Ben-Porath E., Gilboa I., Linear measures, the Gini index, and the income-equality tradeoff. Journal of Economic Theory. 64:1994;443-467.
4. Blackorby C., Donaldson D., Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare. Journal of Economic Theory. 18:1978;59-80.
5. Bleichrodt H., Quiggin J., Characterizing QALYs under a general rank-dependent utility model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 15:1997;151-165.
6. Bleichrodt H., Quiggin J., Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? Journal of Health Economics. 18:1999;681-708.
7. Broome, J., 1988. Goodness, fairness and QALYs. In: Bell, M., Mendus, S. (Eds.), Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-73.
8. Culyer A.J., The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 5:1989;34-58.
9. de Finetti, B., 1931. Sul Significato Soggettivo della Probabilità. Fundamenta Mathematicae 17, 298-329. Translated into English as On the subjective meaning of probability. In: Monari, P., Cocchi, D. (1993, Eds.), Probabilità e Induzione. Clueb, Bologna, pp. 291-321.
10. Diecidue E., Wakker P.P., Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension. Mathematical Social Sciences. 43:2002;135-149.
11. Dolan P., The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. Journal of Health Economics. 17:1998;39-52.
12. Ebert U., Measurement of inequality: an attempt at unification and generalization. Social Choice and Welfare. 5:1988;147-169.
13. Harris, J., 1988. More and better justice. In: Bell, M., Mendus, S. (Eds.), Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 75-96.
14. Harsanyi J.C., Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy. 61:1953;434-435.
15. Harsanyi J.C., Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy. 63:1955;309-321.
16. Kolm, S.Ch., 1969. The optimal production of social justice. In: Margolis, J., Guitton, H. (Eds.), Public Economics. MacMillan, London, pp. 145-200.
17. Lockwood, M., 1988. Quality of life and resource allocation. In: Bell, M., Mendus, S. (Eds.), Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 33-55.
18. Miyamoto J.M., Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) utility models under expected utility and rank dependent utility assumptions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 43:1999;201-237.
19. Quiggin J., Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 25:1981;160-169.
20. Quiggin, J., 1993, Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
21. Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. Schmeidler D., Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica. 57:1989;571-587.
23. Schmidt, U., 1998. Alternatives to expected utility: some formal theories. In: Barberà, S., Hammond, P.J., Seidl, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, in press.
24. Sen, A.K., 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden-Day, San Francisco.
25. Starmer C., Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature. 38:2000;332-382.
26. Tversky A., Kahneman D., Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5:1992;297-323.
27. Van Doorslaer, E.K.A., Wagstaff, A., Rutten, F.F.H., 1993. Equity in the Finance and Delivery of Health Care: An International Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Wagstaff A., QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics. 10:1991;21-41.
29. Weymark J.A., Generalized Gini inequality indices. Mathematical Social Sciences. 1:1981;409-430.
30. Williams A., Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Economics. 6:1997;117-132.
31. Williams, A., Cookson, R., 2000. Equity in health. In: Culyer, A.J., Newhouse, J.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1863-1910.
32. Yaari M.E., The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica. 55:1987;95-115.
33. Yaari M.E., A controversial proposal concerning inequality measurement. Journal of Economic Theory. 44:1988;381-397.