medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2002, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2002; 44 (2)

Clinicians and the economic evaluation of health

Merino JG

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 153-157
PDF size: 35.62 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Papers dealing with the economic evaluation of health care have proliferated in the clinical literature. They provide an evidence-based element to help policy makers allocate resources among competing projects. These studies are generally done from a the perspective of a health provider (public or practice) or a public health professional, they do not take into account the special nature of the patient-physician relationship. The value of these studies for a clinician caring for an individual patient is questioned because the perspective used and the values measured represent those of society or a health provider, not those of patients. In addition, since cost-effectiveness analysis fails to take into account important societal ethical beliefs that are relevant to the care of individuals, its application to individual care is limited. Physicians should use these analyses when working as private or public policy makers, not as clinicians.


REFERENCES

  1. Walter SD, Hurley JE, Labelle RJ, Sackett DL. Clinical rounds for nonclinicians: Some impressions. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:612-618.

  2. Menzel P, Gold MR, Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, Ubel P. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis of health. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29(3):7-15.

  3. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for economic evaluation of health care programmes. (2nd ed Oxford. Oxford: University Press, 1999.

  4. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO, and the BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313:275-283.

  5. Doubliet P, Weinstein MC, McNeil BJ. Use and misuse of the term “cost effective” in medicine. N Engl J Med 1986;314:253-256.

  6. Detsky AS. Terminology I would like to see disappear. Am Heart J 1999;137:S51-S52.

  7. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473-481.

  8. 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 1992;148:913-917.

  9. Asch DA. Choices for individual patients vs.groups. N Engl J Med 1990:323:922.

  10. Asch DA, Hershey JC. Why some health policies don’t make sense at the bedside. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:846-850.

  11. Gifford F. Outcomes research and practice guidelines: Upstream issues for downstream users. Hastings Cent Rep 1996;26(2):38-44.

  12. Redelmeier DA, Tversky A. Discrepancy between medical decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1162-1164.

  13. Shiell A, Hawe P, Seymour J. Values and preferences are not necessarily the same. Health Econ 1997;6:515-518.

  14. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2000;9:127-136.

  15. Jennings B. Beyond distributive justice in Health Reform. Hastings Cent Rep 1996;26(6):14-16.

  16. Danis M, Churchill LR. Autonomy and the common weal. Hastings Cent Rep 1991;21(1):25-31.

  17. Eddy DM. Cost-effectiveness analysis: Will it be accepted? JAMA 1992;268:132-136.

  18. Eddy DM. Cost-effectiveness analysis: A conversation with my father. JAMA 1992;267:1669-1675.

  19. LaPuma J, Lawlor E. Quality adjusted life years: Ethical implications for physicians and policymakers. JAMA 1990;263:2917-2921.

  20. Sulmasy DP. Physicians, cost control and ethics. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:920-926.

  21. Granata AV, Hillman AL. Competing practice guidelines: Using costeffectiveness analysis to make optimal decisions. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:56-63.

  22. Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician’s guide to cost effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:147-154.

  23. 23 Dyer AR. Patients, not costs, come first. Hastings Cent Rep 1986;16(2): 5-6.

  24. Angell M. The doctor as a double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1993;3: 279-286.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com