Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Das Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis als Priorisierungskriterium? Eine philosophisch-dogmenhistorische Betrachtung des ökonomischen Paradigmas der Wertmaximierung

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Priorisierung in der Medizin

Part of the book series: Kölner Schriften zum Medizinrecht ((KÖLNMED,volume 11))

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Backhouse RE (2008): Marginal revolution. In: Durlauf SN; Blume LE (Hrsg.): The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Zweite Auflage. Palgrave Macmillan. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Online: http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_M000392 doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1026 [Abruf am 13.12.2011].

  • Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Loomes G, Mason H, Odejar M, Pinto Prades JL, Robinson A, Ryan M, Shakley P, Smith R, Sugden R, Wildman J (2010): Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technology Assessment 14(27).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry B (1965): Political Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J, Ubel P (2002): Types of inconsistency in health-state utility judgements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 1100–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron J, Wu Z, Brennan DJ, Weeks C, Ubel P (2001): Analog scale, magnitude estimation, and person trade-off as measures of health utility: Biases and their correction. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14: 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug M (1996): Economic Theory in Retrospect. Fünfte Auflage. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug M (1980): The Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazier JE, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A (1999): A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 3(9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer F, Zweifel P, Kifmann M (2005): Gesundheitsökonomik. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome J (1991): Utility. Economics and Philosophy 7: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni L, Sugden R (2007): The road not taken: how psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back. The Economic Journal 117: 146–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni L, Guala F (2002): Vilfredo Pareto and the epistemological foundations of choice theory. History of Political Economy 33(1): 21–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1998): Putting a Different Spin on QALYs: Beyond a Sociological Critique. In: Davis JB (Hrsg.): New Economics and Its History. HOPE 29 (supplement): 143–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer A (1997): Maximising the health of the whole community. The case for. In: New B (Hrsg.): Rationing: Talk and Action in Health Care. London: King’s Fund, S. 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer A (1989) The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 5(1): 34–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobb M (1973): Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P, Cookson R (2000): A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51: 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P, Edlin R, Tsuchiya A (on behalf of the NICE Social QALY team) (2008): The relative societal value of health gains to different beneficiaries: a summary. Health Economics and Decision Science Discussion Paper Series No. 08/12. Birmingham. Online: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/11213/1/HEDS_DP_08-12.pdf [Abruf am 28.4.2012].

  • Dolan P, Kahneman D (2008): Interpretations of health and their implications for the valuation of health. The Economic Journal 118: 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A (2005): QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 14: 197–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan P, Tsuchyia A (2003): The person trade-off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting. Health Economics 12: 505–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O´Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005): Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, PC (1989): Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 127–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forget EL (2004): Contested histories of an applied field: the case of health economics. History of Political Economy 36(3): 617–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber AM, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW, Kamlet MS (1996): Theoretical Foundations of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (Hrsg.) (1996): Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, S. 25–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giocoli N (2003): Modeling Rational Agents. From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green C (2001): On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Economics 10: 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M (2000): Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 17(2): 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J (1986): Well-being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadorn DC (1991): Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 265(17): 2218–2225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hands DW (2009): Economics, psychology, and the history of consumer choice. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34: 633–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J (1988): More and better justice. In: Bell JM, Mendus S (Hrsg.): Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, S. 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman DM (2002): The limits to empirical ethics. In: Murray CJL et al.: Summary Measures of Population Health. Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications. Geneva: WHO, S. 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman DM, McPherson MS (2006): Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy. Zweite Auflage. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR (1959): A Revision of the Demand Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR (1939a): Value and Capital: An Inquiry into some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory. Zweite Auflage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR (1939b): The foundations of welfare economics. The Economic Journal 49: 696–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR, Allen RGD (1934): A reconsideration of the theory of value. Part I. Economica 1: 52–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huster S (2011): Soziale Gesundheitsgerechtigkeit. Sparen, Umverteilen, Vorsorgen? Berlin: Wagenbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevons WS (1911/2006): The Theory of Political Economy. Eilbron Classics. Reproduktion der vierten Auflage (erste Auflage: 1871). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor N (1939): Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. The Economic Journal 49: 549–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauder E (1965): A History of Marginal Utility Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klonschinski A, Lübbe W (2011): QALYs und Gerechtigkeit: Ansätze und Probleme einer gesundheitsökonomischen Lösung der Fairnessproblematik. Das Gesundheitswesen 73: 688–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little IMD (1957): A Critique of Welfare Economics. Zweite Auflage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd AJ (2003): Threats to the estimation of benefits: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Economics 12: 393–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe W (2012): Kein empirischer Weg zu Priorisierungstabellen. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Idee, „Bewertungsdimensionen“ im Rückgriff auf „Stakeholder-Präferenzen“ zu gewichten. In diesem Band, S. 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe W (2011): Sondervotum zur Stellungnahme des Deutschen Ethikrats: Kosten und Nutzen im Gesundheitswesen – Zur normativen Funktion ihrer Bewertung, Berlin, 27. Januar 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe W (2009a): Aggregation in health resource allocation. Internationale Konferenz „Ethical issues in the prioritization of health resources“. Harvard University Program in Ethics and Health. Harvard Universität. Boston. 24 April 2009. Online: http://peh.harvard.edu/events/2009/priority_resources/day_2/weyma_lubbe_paper.pdf [Abruf am 24. Mai 2012].

  • Lübbe W (2009b): Postutilitarismus in der Priorisierungsdebatte. ZEFQ 103: 99–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe W (2005a): Wirtschaftlichkeit und Gerechtigkeit: Zwei ethische Gebote? Eine Grundlagenreflexion. Das Gesundheitswesen 67: 325–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe W (2005b): Das Problem der Gleichheit in der „Numbers“-Debatte. In: Rauprich O, Marckmann G, Vollmann J (Hrsg.) (2005): Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Medizin. Paderborn: Mentis, S. 105–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas H (2008): Jevons, William Stanley (1835–1882). In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE (Hrsg.): The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Zweite Auflage. Palgrave Macmillan. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Online: http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_J000012 doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0864 [Abruf am 13.12.2011].

  • Marckmann G, Siebert U (2002): Prioritäten in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Was können wir aus dem „Oregon Health Plan“ lernen? Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 127: 1601–1604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995): Microeconomic Theory. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKie J, Shimpton B, Richardson J, Hurworth R (2011): The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs. Health Economics 20: 945–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mongin P, D’Aspremont C (1999): Utility theory and ethics. In: Barbera S, Hammond P, Seidl C (Hrsg.): Handbook of Utility Theory. Vol. 1. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1973): Spieltheorie und Wirtschaftliches Verhalten. 3. Auflage. Würzburg: Physika-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeier HM (1990): William Stanley Jevons und Alfred Marshall – Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Ökonomie und Weltanschauung in der frühen englischen Neoklassik. Regensburg: Transfer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord E (1999): Cost-Value-Analysis in Health Care: Making Sense out of QALYS. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord E (1995): The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Medical Decision Making 15: 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P (1999): Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics 8: 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P (1995a): Maximizing health benefits vs. egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Social Science and Medicine 41: 1429–1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P (1995b): Who cares about costs? Does economic analysis impose or reflect values? Health Policy 34: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver A (2004): Prioritizing health care: is “health” always an appropriate maximand? Medical Decision Making 24: 272–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pareto V (1927/1971): Manual of Political Economy. Übersetzung der Französischen Ausgabe von 1927. (Erste Auflage 1906). London; Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou AC (1932/1962): The Economics of Welfare. Nachdruck der vierten Auflage. (Erste Auflage 1920). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson J (1994): Cost Utility Analysis: What should be measured? Social Science and Medicine 39(1): 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins L (1935): Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2. Auflage. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Bate A (2001): Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Applied Economic Letters 8: 59–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan M, Gerard K, Currie G (2006): Using discrete choice experiments in health economics. In: Jones AM (Hrsg.): The Elgar Companion to Health Economics. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar, S. 405–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson PA (1938): A note on the pure theory of consumer´s behaviour. Economica 5(17): 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassi F, Archard L, Le Grand J (2001): Equity and the economic evaluation of health care. Health Technology Assessment 5(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas M (2007): The Natural Origins of Economics. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas M (2003): From political economy to positive economics. In: Baldwin T (Hrsg.): The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, S. 235–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas M (1990): A World Ruled by Number: William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics. Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwappach DLB (2009): Effizienz und Fairness: Bevölkerungspräferenzen für die Allokation von Ressourcen. Das Gesundheitswesen 71. Supplement 1: Ethik der Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung, S. S9–S14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwappach DLB (2002): Resource Allocation, Social Values and the QALY: A Review of the Debate and Empirical Evidence. Health Expectations 5: 210–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzinger M, Lanoe JL, Nord E, Durand-Zaleski I (2004): Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade-off responses. Health Economics 13: 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigot N (2002): Jevons’s debt to Bentham: mathematical economy, morals and psychology. The Manchester School 70(2): 262–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler G (1950a): The development of utility theory I. Journal of Political Economy 58(4): 307–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler G (1950b): The development of utility theory II. Journal of Political Economy 58(5): 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance GW (1986): Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics 5: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchyia A, Dolan P (2009): Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism. Health Economics 18: 147–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubel P (2001): Pricing Life. Why it´s Time for Health Care Rationing. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubel P, Loewenstein G (1996): Public perceptions of the importance of prognosis in allocating transplantable livers to children. Medical Decision Making 16: 234–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubel P, Loewenstein G (1995) The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of the public. Health Policy 34: 145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubel P, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, Kamlet M (1996): Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon´s costeffectiveness list failed. Medical Decision Making 16: 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubel P, Richardson J, Pinto Prades JL (1999): Life-saving treatments and disabilities: Are all QALYs created equal? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15(4): 738–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viner J (1925a/1968): The utility concept in value theory and its critics. In: Page AN (Hrsg.): Utility Theory: A Book of Readings. New York; London; Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, S. 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viner J (1925b): The utility concept in value theory and its critics. II. The utility concept in welfare economics. Journal of Political Economy 33(6): 638–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff A (1991): QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics 10: 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker RL, Siegel AW (2002): Morality and the limits of societal values in health care allocation. Health Economics 11: 265–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warke T (2000): Mathematical fitness in the evolution of the utility concept from Bentham to Jevons to Marshall. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22(19): 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein MC, Stason WB (1977): Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. The New England Journal of Medicine 296: 716–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A (2009): QALYs: The basics. Value in Health 12, Supplement I: S5–S9.

    Google Scholar 

  • White MV (1994): The moment of Richard Jennings: the production of Jevon’s marginalist economic agent. In: Mirowski P (Hrsg.): Natural Images in Economic Thought: „Markets read in Tooth and Claw“. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, S. 197–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams A (1997): Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the „fair innings“ argument. Health Economics 6: 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams A (1995): Health economics and health care priorities. Health Care Analysis 3: 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams A (1988): Ethics and efficiency in the provision of health care. In: Bell JM, Mendus S (Hrsg.): Philosophy and Medical Welfare. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, S. 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams A, Cookson R (2000): Equity in health. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (Hrsg.) (2000): Handbook of Health Economics. Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier, S. 1863–1908.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für praktische Philosophie, Institut für Philosophie, Universität Regensburg, 93040, Regensburg, Germany

    Andrea Klonschinski

Authors
  1. Andrea Klonschinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Klonschinski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institut für Medizinrecht, Universität zu Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, Köln, 50923, Germany

    Björn Schmitz-Luhn

  2. , Institut für Sozialrecht, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, Bochum, 44780, Germany

    André Bohmeier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klonschinski, A. (2013). Das Kosten-Nutzen-Verhältnis als Priorisierungskriterium? Eine philosophisch-dogmenhistorische Betrachtung des ökonomischen Paradigmas der Wertmaximierung. In: Schmitz-Luhn, B., Bohmeier, A. (eds) Priorisierung in der Medizin. Kölner Schriften zum Medizinrecht, vol 11. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35448-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35448-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35447-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35448-9

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation