IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/60467.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The cost-effectiveness challenge: is it worth it?

Author

Listed:
  • Knapp, Martin

Abstract

Scarcity of resources means that difficult choices have to be made about to use them. Cost-effectiveness evidence provides a way to help decision-makers get ‘best value’ from their resources when choosing between two or more clinical or other interventions. Often it is found that one intervention has better outcomes than another, but also costs more. In these circumstances there is a need for the decision-maker to reach a view as to whether those better outcomes are ‘worth’ the higher costs, necessitating difficult trade-offs. Illustrations from the dementia field are given to illustrate how these trade-offs might be made. For strategic decisions it has often proved helpful to use a generic outcome measure such as the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The fundamental aim of a healthcare system is not to save money, but to save and improve lives. Cost-effectiveness and similar analyses can help by showing how to get the most out of available resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Knapp, Martin, 2015. "The cost-effectiveness challenge: is it worth it?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60467, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:60467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60467/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. MacKillop, Eleanor & Sheard, Sally, 2018. "Quantifying life: Understanding the history of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 359-366.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N0 - Economic History - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:60467. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.