PubMed · 10105704
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Longley, A Pithouse. 1990-08-09. Keep on moving.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10105704/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
To date, a common view in the health economics literature is that the applicability of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is limited, due to the distribution problem which underlies its main method of valuation (e.g. willingness to pay). One view is that cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) overcomes these problems. We show that the same distributional concerns apply to non-monetary valuations of health consequences, to measurement of costs and to the decision rules of CEA. Hence adopting CEA over CBA cannot be justified on the basis of "avoiding" distributional considerations. The implications of our results are discussed, including alternative strategies for the use of "income-based" research findings in social decision-making.
In this paper we address the importance of distributive preferences in the social valuation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We propose a social welfare function that generalises the functions traditionally used in the health economic literature. The novelty is that, depending on the individual health gains, this function can represent either preferences for concentrating or preferences for spreading total gain or both together, an issue which has not been addressed until now. Based on an experiment, we observe that this generalisation provides a suitable approximation to the sampled social preferences.
When a HRQOL measure is needed in health care decision making should it be a generic measure (a GEN), intended to cover the entire domain of health, a condition-specific measure (a CSM) intended to embrace those aspects of health associated with the condition concerned, or both? This paper proposes that it will never be appropriate to use both a CSM and a GEN for the same decision; that a GEN alone will probably be the appropriate measure in the majority of decisions; that a CSM alone will sometimes be appropriate; and that whether it is a GEN alone or a CSM alone that is appropriate depends entirely on the structure of the decision. The argument rests on the distinction between knowledge validity and decision validity. But it has a supplementary basis in rejection of the widespread (but unjustifiable) belief that CSMs are more "sensitive" or "responsive" than GENs and hence can detect "small but important changes" that GENs always or often miss.