Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Loss Aversion and Cost Effectiveness of Healthcare Programmes

  • Commentary
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Table I

Notes

  1. In 1994, the US state of Oregon intended to allow terminally ill patients to request a lethal dose of drugs, under the condition that two doctors confirm they have less than 6 months to live and the patients are mentally competent. However, an organization called National Right to Life[12] challenged the Oregon law, arguing that it lacked sufficient protections for the constitutional rights of terminally ill patients who may kill themselves because of depression or an inability to pay for continued treatment.[13]

  2. As an example, consider the following statement: “I think that for me the most powerful argument for nationalized insurance is the sharing of risk and the removal of fear from the healthcare system — in New Zealand I did not even think about healthcare — here in the US my greatest fear is becoming sick and losing not only my life but potentially everything I and my family have worked for. I guess that if all else fails I can return with my family to New Zealand for healthcare. Most hard working American families are not so fortunate.”[14]

References

  1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 1992; 5: 297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Camerer C. Three cheers – psychological, theoretical, empirical – for loss aversion. J Mark Res 2005; 42 (2): 1291–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumers’ threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002; 11 (2): 175–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowie J. Why cost-effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant. Health Econ 2004; 13 (5): 453–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dowie J. No room for kinkiness in a public healthcare system. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1203–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sen A. Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philos Public Aff 1977; 6 (4): 317–44

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Ethical economics and cost-effectiveness analysis: is it ethical to ignore opportunity costs? Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2005; 5 (6): 661–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CMAJ 1993; 148 (6): 913–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Severens JL, Brunenberg DE, Fenwick EA, et al. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1207–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, et al. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science 2007; 315 (5811): 515–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. National Right to Life[online]. Available from URL: http://www.nrlc.org [Accessed 2008 Sep 10]

  13. Linder DO. The other right-to-life debate: when does Fourteenth Amendment “life” end? Ariz Law Rev 1995; 37 (4): 1183–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Healthcare for all Colorado. Single-payer universal health care[online]. Available from URL: http://www.healthcareforallcolorado.org/ [Accessed 2007 Feb 12]

  15. van den Hout WB, Kramer GW, Noordijk EM, et al. Cost-utility analysis of short- versus long-course palliative radiotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98 (24): 1786–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sunstein CR. Moral heuristics. Behav Brain Sci 2005; 28 (4): 531–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Gleueler Street 176-178, 50935, Cologne, Germany

    Afschin Gandjour

Authors
  1. Afschin Gandjour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Afschin Gandjour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gandjour, A. Loss Aversion and Cost Effectiveness of Healthcare Programmes. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 895–898 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826110-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation