IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecr/v37y2004i1p3-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Is It Really Useful or Are We Just Kidding Ourselves?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Drummond

Abstract

Despite the growth in published studies year on year, and its adoption as a formal requirement in some jurisdictions, there are still doubts about whether economic evaluation is really useful in health care decision making. This article considers evidence for and against the proposition that economic evaluation is useful. Two decision making contexts are considered: the central level, where a single agency or organisation makes decisions for the whole health care system; and the local level, where decisions are made by various actors within the health care system. Four conditions that seem to foster the use of economic evaluation are identified. It is concluded that economic evaluation is not being used to its full potential, but that ways can be found to increase its use. Copyright 2004 The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Drummond, 2004. "Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Is It Really Useful or Are We Just Kidding Ourselves?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 3-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:3-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eyob Habte Tesfamariam & Zekarias Mihreteab Ogbazghi & John George Annandale & Yemane Gebrehiwot, 2020. "Cost–Benefit Analysis of Municipal Sludge as a Low-Grade Nutrient Source: A Case Study from South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Neale Smith & Craig Mitton & Stuart Peacock, 2009. "Qualitative methodologies in health‐care priority setting research," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1163-1175, October.
    3. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    4. Stuart J. Peacock & Craig Mitton, 2012. "Priority Setting Methods in Health Services," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 53, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Lessard, Chantale, 2007. "Complexity and reflexivity: Two important issues for economic evaluation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1754-1765, April.
    6. Praveen Thokala & Simon Dixon & Beate Jahn, 2015. "Resource Modelling: The Missing Piece of the HTA Jigsaw?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 193-203, March.
    7. Eun-Young Bae & Hui Jeong Kim & Hye-Jae Lee & Junho Jang & Seung Min Lee & Yunkyung Jung & Nari Yoon & Tae Kyung Kim & Kookhee Kim & Bong-Min Yang, 2018. "Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Kees Gool & Gisselle Gallego & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney & Jane Hall & Robyn Ward, 2007. "Economic Evidence at the Local Level," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(12), pages 1055-1062, December.
    9. Cheung, Kei Long & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Vokó, Zoltán & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa & Muñoz, Celia & Wolfenstetter, Silke B. & Józwiak-Hagymásy, Judit & de Vries, Hein, 2016. "Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 46-54.
    10. James F. O’Mahony, 2021. "Revision of Ireland’s Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: New State-Industry Drug Pricing Deal Should Adequately Reflect Opportunity Costs," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 339-348, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:3-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.