Correction to: VALUING QALY GAINS BY APPLYING A SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE: VALUING QALY GAINS (Health Economics, (2013), 22, 10, (1272-1281), 10.1002/hec.2879);Valuing qaly gains by applying a societal perspective

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 22, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1272-1281

  Bobinac, Ana ^a   Van Exel, N Job A ^a   Rutten, Frans F H ^a   Brouwer, Werner B F ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

QALY; social perspective; WTP

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INCOME; LOGLINEAR MODEL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; SOCIAL STATUS;

QALY; SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE; WTP;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84884279593     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.4729     Document Type: Erratum

References (28)

1. Andreoni J,. 1990. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 100: 464-477.
2. Barry BM,. A treatise on social justice. 1989. Theories of Justice, vol. I. University of California Press: USA.
3. Bergstrom TC,. 2006. Benefit-cost in a benevolent society. American Economic Review 96: 339-351.
4. Bleichrodt H, Pinto Prades JL,. 2000. A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science 46: 1485-1496.
5. Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, Rutten F,. 2011a. Inquiry into the relationship between the equity weights and the value of a QALY. Submitted.
6. Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, Rutten F,. 2011b. Get more, pay more? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation. Journal of Health Economics 31: 158-168.
7. Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, Rutten F,. 2011c. Moving towards valid estimates of individual willingness to pay for a QALY: using uncertainty and probability weighting. Submitted.
8. Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH,. 2008. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. Journal of Health Economics 27 (2): 325-338.
9. Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M,. 2010. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions. CHE Research Paper 54, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
10. Corso P, Hammitt J, Graham J,. 2001. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23: 165-184.
11. Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al,. 2003. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Economics 2003: 545-551.
12. Donaldson C, Baker R, et al,. 2010. European value of a quality adjusted life year. Final Publishable Report of the EUROVAQ project (SP5A-CT-2007-044172) . Retrieved from: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq/
13. Donaldson C, Baker R, Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Wildman J, Bateman I, Loomes G, Robinson A, Sugden R, Pinto Prades JL, Ryan M, Shackley P, Smith R,. 2011. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise? BMC Health Services Research 11: 8.
14. Gravelle H, Brouwer WBF, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, Rutten FFH,. 2007. Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules. Health Economics 16: 307-317.
15. Gyrd-Hansen D,. Willingness to pay for a QALY. 2003. Health Economics 12: 1049-1060.
16. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjar T,. 2012. Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers. Health Economics 21: 222-237.
17. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG,. 2000. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Medical Decision Making 20: 332-342.
18. Hurley J,. 2000. An overview of the normative economics of the health sector. In Handbook of Health Economics, vol. 1A, Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
19. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL,. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57-70.
20. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF,. 2006. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics 15: 1121-1132.
21. Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C,. 2008. Willingness to pay for a QALY: past, present and future. Expert Reviews of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 8: 575-582.
22. Olsen JA,. 1997. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?. Health Economics 6: 603-612.
23. Olsen JA, Kidholm K, Donaldson C, Shackley P,. 2004. Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches. Health Policy 70: 217-228.
24. Pinto Prades JL, Loomes G, Brey R,. 2009. Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY. Journal of Health Economics 28: 553-562.
25. Prelec D,. 1998. The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66: 497-528.
26. Smith RD,. 2007. Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in healthcare misspecified? Health Economics 16: 861-869.
27. Tversky A, Kahneman D,. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297-323.
28. Van de Wetering E, Stolk E, van Exel N, Brouwer W,. 2011. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. The European Journal of Health Economics, DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0346-7.