Abstract
By describing societal value judgements in health care in numerical terms one may in theory increase the precision of guidelines for priority setting and allow decision makers to judge more accurately the degree to which different health care programs provide societal value for money. However, valuing health programs in terms of QALYs disregards salient societal concerns for fairness in resource allocation. A different kind of numerical valuation of medical interventions, that incorporates concerns for fairness, is described. The usefulness to decision makers of such numerical information remains to be tested.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Campbell, A. and Gillett, G. (1993) Justice and the Right to Health Care. In Ethical Issues in Defining Core Services. Wellington: The National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services. 175
Culyer, A.J., Lavers, R.J. and Williams, A. (1971) Social Indicators: Health. Social Trends 2, 31–42.
Daniels, N. (1985) Just Health Care. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dolan, P. (1998) The Measurement of Individual Utility and SocialWelfare. Journal of Health Economics 17, 39–52.
Dolan, P. and Cookson, R. (1998) Measuring Preferences over the Distribution of Health Benefits, Mimeo. University of York: Centre for Health Economics.
Menzel, P. (1990) Strong Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, C. and Lopez, A. (1996) The Global Burden of Disease. Harvard University Press.
Nord, E. (1992) An Alternative to QALYs: The Saved Young Life Equivalent (SAVE). B.Med. J. 305, 875–877.
Nord, E. (1993) The Trade-Off Between Severity of Illness and Treatment Effect in Cost-Value Analysis of Health Care. Health Policy 24, 227–238.
Nord, E. (1995) The Person Trade-Off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs. Medical Decision Making 15, 201–208.
Nord, E. (1996) Health Status Index Models for Use in Resource Allocation Decisions. A Critical Review in the Light of Observed Preferences for Social Choice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 12, 31–44.
Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Singer, P. and Kuhse, H. (1995) Maximising Health Benefits versus Egalitarianism: An Australian Survey of Health Issues. Social Science & Medicine 41, 1429–1437.
Nord, E., Pinto, J.L., Richardson, J., Menzel, P. and Ubel, P. (1999) Incorporating Societal Concerns for Fairness in Numerical Valuations of Health Programs.Health Economics 8, 25–39.
Norwegian Commission for Prioritising in Health Care (1987) Retningslinjer for prioritering innen helsevesenet (Guidelines for Prioritising in Health Care). NOU, Vol. 23. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Olsen, J.A. (1994) Persons vs Years: Two Ways of Eliciting Implicit Weights. Health Economics 3, 39–46.
Oregon Health Services Commission (1991) Prioritization of Health Services. A Report to the Governor and Legislature. Salem, Oregon.
Pinto Prades, José-Luis (1997) Is the Person Trade-Off a Valid Method for Allocating Health Care Resources? Health Economics 6, 71–81.
Sintonen, H. (1981) An Approach to Measuring and Valuing Health States. Soc. Sci. & Med. 15c, 55–65.
Torrance, G.W. (1986) Measurement of Health State Utilities for Economic Appraisal. Journal of Health Economics 5, 1–30.
Ubel, P.A., Kamlet, M., Scanlon, D. and Loewenstein, G. (1996) Individual Utilities are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices: A Partial Explanation ofWhy Oregon's Cost-Effectiveness List Failed. Medica Decision Making 16, 108–119.
Williams, A. (1988) Ethics and Efficiency in the Provision of Health Care. In J.M. Bell and S. Mendus (Eds.), Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge University Press.
Williams, A. (1997) Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument. Health Economics 6, 117–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nord, E. Towards Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care?. Health Care Analysis 7, 167–175 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009489122094
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009489122094