Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The (Near) Equivalence of Cost—Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses

Fact or Fallacy?

  • Current Opinion
  • Near Equivalence of CEA and CBA
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

There has been much recent debate in the health economics literature as to the (near) equivalence of cost—benefit analysis (CBA) and cost—effectiveness analysis (CEA). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that whether such a (near) equivalence exists depends on whether one defines economic evaluations as ‘CBA’ or ‘CEA’ on the basis of either what is measured or what question the analyst is seeking to answer. The former basis of definition is popular within the ‘decision science’ approach to economic evaluation, but does not seem to have any theoretical support. If the latter, more theoretically correct, basis is accepted, there is no longer a case for the (near) equivalence of CBA and CEA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Maynard A. Economic evaluation techniques in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (2): 115–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost—effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 1–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Meltzer D. Accounting for future costs medical cost—effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 33–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. On the (near) equivalence of costeffectiveness and cost—benefit analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7: 12–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mooney GH. Economic evaluation: the Australian road to health service efficiency. In: Health care evaluation — report of the National Health Care Evaluations Workshop, July 1989. Canberra: Public Health Association of Australia, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mishan EJ. Cost—benefit analysis. 4th ed. London: Unwin Hyman, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dreze J, Stern N. The theory of cost—benefit analysis. In: Auerbach AE, Feldstein M, editors. Handbook of public economics. Vol. II. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johannesson M. The relationship between cost—effectiveness analysis and cost—benefits analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 483–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL. Economic evaluation of health—producing technologies across different countries. Health Policy 1995; 33: 219–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Economic evaluation. In: Detels R, Holland WW, Mc Ewen J, et al., editors. Oxford textbook of public health. Vol. 2: the methods of public health. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997: 849–71

    Google Scholar 

  11. Birch S, Donaldson C. Applications of cost benefit analysis to health care: departures from welfare economic theory. J Health Econ 1987; 6: 211–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Culyer AJ. Economics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gould D. A groundling—s notebook. New Scient 1971; 51: 217

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gravelle H, Rees R. Microeconomics. London: Longman, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost—effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  16. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  17. Russell IT, Devlin B, Fell M, et al. Day case surgery for hernias and haemorrhoids: a clinical, social and economic evaluation. Lancet 1977; I: 844–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doesell DP. Economic analysis and end stage renal disease: an Australian study. Econ Anal Policy 1978; 8: 21–36

    Google Scholar 

  19. Donaldson C, Mapp T, Farrar S, et al. Assessing community values in health care: is the ‘willingness to pay’ method feasible? Health Care Anal 1997; 5: 7–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Luce BR, Simpson K. Methods of cost—effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther 1995; 17: 109–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1 (1): 20–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidisation: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1 (1): 54–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kristiansen IS, Eggen AE, Thelle DS. Cost effectiveness of incremental programmes for lowering serum cholesterol concentration: is individual intervention worthwhile? BMJ 1991; 302: 1119–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 332–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost—effectiveness ratios: in a league of their own. Health Policy 1994; 28: 133–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ortega A, Dranitsaris G, Sturgeon J, et al. Cost—utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 66: 454–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mc Guire W, Neugut AI, Arikian S, et al. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of paclitaxel as alternative combination therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 640–5

    Google Scholar 

  29. Elit LM, Gafni A, Levine MN. Economic and policy implications of adopting paclitaxel as first—line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer: an Ontario perspective. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 632–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. Can Med Assoc J 1993; 148: 913–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Birch S, Gafni A. Cost effectiveness/cost utility analyses: do current decision rules take us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992; 11: 279–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, University Medical Buildings, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland

    Cam Donaldson

Authors
  1. Cam Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cam Donaldson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donaldson, C. The (Near) Equivalence of Cost—Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 13, 389–396 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199813040-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199813040-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation