Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2005

01.04.2005 | Commentary

Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare

Patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond

verfasst von: Dr John F. P. Bridges

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 4/2005

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The continued growth in the economic evaluation of healthcare over the past 25 years has led to a shortage of trained health economists globally, leading to a number of universities and/or national governments developing specialised health economics programmes to train more health economists. One of the common problems with many of these training programmes is that they only educate new health economists to the Masters level, and as such they are unable to cover the many skills needed by a successful health economist. Furthermore, government and industry interests have ensured that economic evaluation is a heavily regulated environment that gives little incentive to seek further education. These two related factors (under-education and over-regulation) have lead to a situation where economic evaluation methods may adversely limit innovation of therapeutics and devices in clinical areas that perform badly when evaluated on the cost per QALY scale. The good news, however, is that the tide is turning and theoretically sound adjustments (such as risk adjustments and stated preferences) to the current paradigm are now being considered. This, of cause, is just the tip of the iceberg with other important issues such as time preference and the endogeneity of preference remaining very much under-researched areas in health.
This paper concludes that many of these real-world issues, such as patient preferences, can be avoided by using artificial objective functions such as cost per QALY, but this comes at the cost of irrelevance and the misallocation of resources. If we are to meet all of the future challenges in economic evaluation in healthcare then we must focus more on advanced education and far less on the regulation of health economists.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Briggs A, Wonderling D, Mooney C. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40PubMedCrossRef Briggs A, Wonderling D, Mooney C. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Graff Zivin J. Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. Health Econ 2001; 10: 499–508CrossRef Graff Zivin J. Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. Health Econ 2001; 10: 499–508CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–64PubMedCrossRef Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–64PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of costeffectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 109–29PubMedCrossRef Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of costeffectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 109–29PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 23–31PubMedCrossRef Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 23–31PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11 (3): 279–96PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/utility analysis: do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11 (3): 279–96PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness ratios: in a league of there own. Health Policy 1994; 28: 133–41PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness ratios: in a league of there own. Health Policy 1994; 28: 133–41PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (4): 213–24PubMed Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (4): 213–24PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Graff Zivin J, Bridges J. Addressing risk preferences in costeffectiveness analyses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002; 1 (3): 135–9 Graff Zivin J, Bridges J. Addressing risk preferences in costeffectiveness analyses. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002; 1 (3): 135–9
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges J. Understanding the risks associated with resource allocation decisions in health: an illustration of the importance of portfolio theory. Health, Risk and Society 2004; 6 (3): 257–75CrossRef Bridges J. Understanding the risks associated with resource allocation decisions in health: an illustration of the importance of portfolio theory. Health, Risk and Society 2004; 6 (3): 257–75CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does `process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholesystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (5): 699–707PubMedCrossRef Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does `process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholesystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (5): 699–707PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (1): 55–64PubMed Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (1): 55–64PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Maynard A, Sheldon T. (1997) Health economics: has it fulfilled its potential? In: Maynard A, Charmers I, editors. Nonrandom reflections on health services research. London: BMA Publications and Nuffield Provincial Trust, 1997: 149–65 Maynard A, Sheldon T. (1997) Health economics: has it fulfilled its potential? In: Maynard A, Charmers I, editors. Nonrandom reflections on health services research. London: BMA Publications and Nuffield Provincial Trust, 1997: 149–65
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the extra in extra wefarism? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1121–33PubMedCrossRef Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the extra in extra wefarism? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1121–33PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges J, Terris D. Portfolio evaluation of health programs: a reply to Sendi, et al. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 1849–51PubMedCrossRef Bridges J, Terris D. Portfolio evaluation of health programs: a reply to Sendi, et al. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 1849–51PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535–46PubMedCrossRef Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535–46PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Bowles S. Endogenous preferences: the culture consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 1998; 36 (1): 75–111 Bowles S. Endogenous preferences: the culture consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 1998; 36 (1): 75–111
Metadaten
Titel
Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare
Patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond
verfasst von
Dr John F. P. Bridges
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2005
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 4/2005
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523040-00002

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2005

PharmacoEconomics 4/2005 Zur Ausgabe