Author:
Baltussen Rob,Brouwer Werner,Niessen Louis
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis has much conceptual attractiveness in priority setting but is not used to its full potential to assist policy-makers on making choices in health in developed or in developing countries. We call for a shift away from present economic evaluation activities—that tend to produce ad hoc and incomparable economic evaluation studies and, therefore, add little to the compendium of knowledge of cost-effectiveness of health interventions in general—toward a more systematic approach. Research efforts in economic evaluation should build on the foundations of cost-effectiveness research of the past decades to arrive at an informative methodology useful for national policy-makers. This strategy means that governments should steer sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis to obtain systematic and comprehensive information on the economic attractiveness of a set of new and current interventions, using a standardized methodology and capturing interactions between interventions. Without redirecting the focus of economic evaluation research, choosing in health care bears the risk to remain penny-wise but pound-foolish.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference21 articles.
1. Oregon HSC .1991 Oregon Medicaid priority setting project.Eugene:Oregon State Government;
2. Churchill RHV , Corney R , Knapp M , et al.2001 A systematic review of controlled trials of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief psychological treatments for depression.Health Technol Assess.5:1–173.
3. Tella MN , Feinglass J , Chang RW .2003 Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies in rheumatology: A review of the literature, 2001-2002.Curr Opin Rheumatol.15:127–131.
4. Pignone M , Saha S , Hoerger T , Mandelblatt J .2002 Cost-effectiv- eness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.Ann Intern Med.137:96–104.
5. Tenbesnel T .2002 Interpreting public input into priority-setting: The role of mediating institutions.Health Policy.62:173–194.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献