Health Economics 

About: Health Economics is an academic journal published by Wiley. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Health care & Population. It has an ISSN identifier of 1057-9230. Over the lifetime, 3186 publications have been published receiving 152423 citations.

The rand 36-item health survey 1.0

Abstract: Recently, Ware and Sherbourne published a new short-form health survey, the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), consisting of 36 items included in long-form measures developed for the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF-36 taps eight health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, general mental health, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health perceptions. It also includes a single item that provides an indication of perceived change in health. The SF-36 items and scoring rules are distributed by MOS Trust, Inc. Strict adherence to item wording and scoring recommendations is required in order to use the SF-36 trademark. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (distributed by RAND) includes the same items as those in the SF-36, but the recommended scoring algorithm is somewhat different from that of the SF-36. Scoring differences are discussed here and new T-scores are presented for the 8 multi-item scales and two factor analytically-derived physical and mental health composite scores.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature

Abstract: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become a commonly used instrument in health economics. This paper updates a review of published papers between 1990 and 2000 for the years 2001-2008. Based on this previous review, and a number of other key review papers, focus is given to three issues: experimental design; estimation procedures; and validity of responses. Consideration is also given to how DCEs are applied and reported. We identified 114 DCEs, covering a wide range of policy questions. Applications took place in a broader range of health-care systems, and there has been a move to incorporating fewer attributes, more choices and interview-based surveys. There has also been a shift towards statistically more efficient designs and flexible econometric models. The reporting of monetary values continues to be popular, the use of utility scores has not gained popularity, and there has been an increasing use of odds ratios and probabilities. The latter are likely to be useful at the policy level to investigate take-up and acceptability of new interventions. Incorporation of interactions terms in the design and analysis of DCEs, explanations of risk, tests of external validity and incorporation of DCE results into a decision-making framework remain important areas for future research.

Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Abstract: Decision-making in health care is inevitably undertaken in a context of uncertainty concerning the effectiveness and costs of health care interventions and programmes. One method that has been suggested to represent this uncertainty is the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. This technique, which directly addresses the decision-making problem, has advantages over confidence interval estimation for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, despite these advantages, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves have yet to be widely adopted within the field of economic evaluation of health care technologies. In this paper we consider the relationship between cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and decision-making in health care, suggest the introduction of a new concept more relevant to decision-making, that of the cost-effectiveness frontier, and clarify the use of these techniques when considering decisions involving multiple interventions. We hope that as a result we can encourage the greater use of these techniques.

Catastrophe and impoverishment in paying for health care: with applications to Vietnam 1993–1998

Abstract: This paper presents and compares two threshold approaches to measuring the fairness of health care payments, one requiring that payments do not exceed a pre-specified proportion of pre-payment income, the other that they do not drive households into poverty. We develop indices for 'catastrophe' that capture the intensity of catastrophe as well as its incidence and also allow the analyst to capture the degree to which catastrophic payments occur disproportionately among poor households. Measures of poverty impact capturing both intensity and incidence are also developed. The arguments and methods are empirically illustrated with data on out-of-pocket payments from Vietnam in 1993 and 1998. This is not an uninteresting application given that 80% of health spending in that country was paid out-of-pocket in 1998. We find that the incidence and intensity of 'catastrophic' payments - both in terms of pre-payment income as well as ability to pay - were reduced between 1993 and 1998, and that both incidence and intensity of 'catastrophe' became less concentrated among the poor. We also find that the incidence and intensity of the poverty impact of out-of-pocket payments diminished over the period in question. Finally, we find that the poverty impact of out-of-pocket payments is primarily due to poor people becoming even poorer rather than the non-poor being made poor, and that it was not expenses associated with inpatient care that increased poverty but rather non-hospital expenditures.

Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial

Abstract: A general approach is discussed to assess the uncertainty surrounding the cost effectiveness ratio (C/E-ratio) estimated on the basis of data from a randomised clinical trial. The approach includes the calculation of a 95% probability ellipse and introduces the concept of a so called C/E-acceptability curve. This last curve defines for each predefined C/E-ratio the probability that the C/E-ratio found in the study is acceptable. The approach is illustrated by estimates of costs per life saved and costs per patient discharged alive on the basis of data from a phase II trial addressing the value of anakinra in treating sepsis syndrome.