IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i3d10.1007_s40258-016-0224-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Jit

    (Public Health England
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

  • Raymond Hutubessy

    (World Health Organization)

Abstract

Economic evaluation of vaccination is a key tool to inform effective spending on vaccines. However, many evaluations have been criticised for failing to capture features of vaccines which are relevant to decision makers. These include broader societal benefits (such as improved educational achievement, economic growth and political stability), reduced health disparities, medical innovation, reduced hospital beds pressures, greater peace of mind and synergies in economic benefits with non-vaccine interventions. Also, the fiscal implications of vaccination programmes are not always made explicit. Alternative methodological frameworks have been proposed to better capture these benefits. However, any broadening of the methodology for economic evaluation must also involve evaluations of non-vaccine interventions, and hence may not always benefit vaccines given a fixed health-care budget. The scope of an economic evaluation must consider the budget from which vaccines are funded, and the decision-maker’s stated aims for that spending to achieve.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Jit & Raymond Hutubessy, 2016. "Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 245-252, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0224-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0224-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0224-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0224-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sugden, Robert & Williams, Alan, 1978. "The Principles of Practical Cost-Benefit Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198770411.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eleanor Bell & Margherita Neri & Lotte Steuten, 2022. "Towards a Broader Assessment of Value in Vaccines: The BRAVE Way Forward," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 105-117, January.
    2. Saito, Yoko & Aizaki, Hideo & Saito, Hisamitsu, 2022. "Assessing the Consumer Acceptability of Vaccine Rice," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 24.
    3. Pascal Crépey & Esther Redondo & Javier Díez-Domingo & Raúl Ortiz de Lejarazu & Federico Martinón-Torres & Ángel Gil de Miguel & Juan Luis López-Belmonte & Fabián P Alvarez & Hélène Bricout & Míriam S, 2020. "From trivalent to quadrivalent influenza vaccines: Public health and economic burden for different immunization strategies in Spain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Natalie Carvalho & Mark Jit & Sarah Cox & Joanne Yoong & Raymond C. W. Hutubessy, 2018. "Capturing Budget Impact Considerations Within Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Rotavirus Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and a Proposed Assessment Frame," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 79-90, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Mackie & John Nellthorp & James Laird, 2005. "Treatment of Induced Traffic," World Bank Publications - Reports 11796, The World Bank Group.
    2. Mark S. Thompson, 1983. "Health Versus Money," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 3(3), pages 285-297, August.
    3. Goswami, Indranil & Urminsky, Oleg, 2021. "Don’t fear the meter: How longer time limits bias managers to prefer hiring with flat fee compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 42-58.
    4. Lin, Tun & De Guzman, Franklin, 2007. "Tourism for pro-poor and sustainable growth: economic analysis of tourism projects," MPRA Paper 24994, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Donald F. Vitaliano, 1992. "An economic assessment of the social costs of highway salting and the efficiency of substituting a new deicing material," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 397-418.
    6. Anthony Boardman & Shaun Hargreaves-Heap, 1999. "Network Externalities and Government Restrictions on Satellite Broadcasting of Key Sporting Events," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 23(3), pages 165-179, August.
    7. Hultkrantz, Lars & Svensson, Mikael, 2012. "A Comparison of Benefit Cost and Cost Utility Analysis in Practice: Divergent Policies in Sweden," Working Papers 2012:5, Örebro University, School of Business.
    8. Marco Grasso, 2004. "Utilizzo e diffusione della valutazione economica dei beni," Others 0406002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bengt Jönsson, 2006. "Time for a common standard for cost-effectiveness in Europe?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(4), pages 223-224, December.
    10. Anthony Ogus, 1998. "Regulatory Appraisal: A Neglected Opportunity for Law and Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 53-68, July.
    11. Stuart S. Nagel, 1983. "Nonmonetary Variables in Benefit-Cost Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 7(1), pages 37-64, February.
    12. Shamim A. Siddiqui, 2014. "Riba, time value of money and discounting," Chapters, in: M. Kabir Hassan & Mervyn K. Lewis (ed.), Handbook on Islam and Economic Life, chapter 6, pages iii-iii, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    14. Shamim Ahmad Siddiqui, 2006. "The Controversy Over Time Value Of Money Among Contemporary Muslim Economists," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 2(2), pages 2-3.
    15. Sebastian Gurtner, 2013. "An analysis of the influence of framework aspects on the study design of health economic modeling evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 221-230, April.
    16. Robert Sugden, 2015. "Consumers' surplus when individuals lack integrated preferences: A development of some ideas from Dupuit," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 1042-1063, December.
    17. E. J. Mishan, 1982. "The New Controversy about the Rationale of Economic Evaluation," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 29-47, March.
    18. Sinden, Jack A., 1980. "Pangloss, Pandora and Pareto for the Aspiring Benefit-Cost Analyst," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(02), pages 1-11, August.
    19. J. Nicholas & D. J. Edwards, 2003. "A model to evaluate materials suppliers' and contractors' business interactions," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 237-245.
    20. Emily Lancsar, 2002. "Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments, CHERE Discussion Paper No 48," Discussion Papers 48, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0224-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.