, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 114–122 | Cite as

Economic Evaluation in Healthcare

A Brief History and Future Directions
Leading Article


Over the last decade there has been tremendous interest in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes, especially in the pharmaceutical field. Economic evaluations started about 30 years ago as rather crude analyses, in which the value of improved health was measured in terms of increased labour production. Now, more refined methods are available to measure health changes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years gained or willingness to pay.

It is important to continue this development, and major fields for future work include the incorporation of quality-of-life measurements into economic evaluations and the linking of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses into a unified framework of economic evaluation. How to incorporate distributional issues is another important area. Finally, it seems crucial to further explore the link between economic evaluation and decision making, since the purpose of economic evaluations is to affect decision making.


Economic Evaluation Contingent Valuation Distributional Issue Health Utility Index Health Econ 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Drummond M. Brandt A, Luce B. et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care: practice problems and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond MF. Stoddard GL. Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications. 1987Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weisbrod B. Economics of public health: measuring the impact of diseases. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johannesson M. Jonsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit anaKsis? Health Policy 1991; 17: 1–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mishan EJ. Cost-benefit analysis. New York: Praeger, 1971Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dupuit JH. De la mesurc de Puulite des travaux publics. Annates des ponts et chaussees 1844. Trans., Barbaek RH. Int Econ Papers 1952; 17: 83–110Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaldor N. Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Econ J 1939; 49: 549–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hicks JR. The foundation of welfare economics. Econ J 1939; 49: 696–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hicks JR. The four consumer’s surpluses. Rev Econ Stud 1941; 11: 31–41Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams A. Cost-benefit analysis: bastard science? and/or insidious poison in the body politick? J Pub Econ 1972; 1: 199–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dublin LI, Lotka AJ. The money value of a man. New York: Ronald Press, 1946Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker GS. Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schelling TC. The life you save may be your own. In: Chase SB, editor. Problems in public expenditure analysis. Washington (DC): Brookings Institution, 1968Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mishan EJ. Evaluation of life and limb: a theoretical approach. J Polit Econ 1971; 79: 687–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klarman HE, Francis JOS, Rosenthal G. Cost-effectiveness analysis applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease. Med Care 1968; 6: 48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein MC, Zeckhauser R. Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973; 2: 147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johannesson M, Weinstein MC. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 459–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bush JW, Chen M, Patrick DL. Cost-effectiveness using a health status index: analysis of the New York State PKU screening program. In: Berg R, editor. Health status indexes. Chicago: Hospital Research and Educational Trust, 1973Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Hypertension: a policy perspective. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1976Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Res 1980; 28: 206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johannesson M, Pliskin JS, Weinstein MC. A note on QALYs, time tradeoff, and discounting. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 188–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preference for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 315–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Peterson J. Variability among methods to assess patients’ well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Viscusi WK. Fatal tradeoffs: public and private responsibilities for risk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD. Valuing environmental goods. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future, 1989Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bishop RC, Heberlein JA. Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased? Am J Agric Econ 1979; 61: 926–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58: 4602–4614Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hanemann MW. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ciriacy-Wantrup SV. Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. J Farm Econ 1947; 29: 1181–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davis RK. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nat Resour J 1963; 3: 239–249Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Acton JP. Evaluating public programs to save lives: the case of heart attacks. Santa Monica: 1973. RAND Report: R-950-RCGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson MS. Read JL, Liang M. Feasibility of willingness to pay measurement in chronic arthritis. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 195–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson MS. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. Am J Public Health 1986; 76: 392–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ 1991; 10: 461–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Kristrom B, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: further results. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 95–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Golan EH, Shechter M. Contingent valuation of supplemental health care in Israel. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 302–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 289–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Greene WH. Econometric analysis, 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1993Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982; 30: 1043–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 503–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sugden R, Williams A. The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams A. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. BMJ 1985; 291: 326–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schulman KA, Kinosian B, Jacobson TA, et al. Reducing high blood cholesterol level with drugs: cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic management. JAMA 1990; 264: 3025–3033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Johannesson M. The relationship between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 483–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Boadway RW, Bruce N. Welfare economics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ 1991; 10: 21–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henry D. Economic analysis as an aid to subsidization decisions: the development of Australian guidelines for pharmaceuticals. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 1: 54–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Evans RG. Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 59–60PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Pharmacy, University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics, Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations