Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Economic evaluations involve the quantification of changes in health resource utilization due to the introduction of new courses of action. Policymakers are increasingly turning to such analyses to acquire information before making decisions about alternatives in health care. Such analyses are used by insurers to determine which services to pay for, and government policy analysts use technology assessments to shed light on the economics of new interventions and courses of action. Economic evaluations are used by policymakers and analysts to make systematic decisions concerning the allocation of resources in the market.

There is a growing literature on economic evaluation in health care. Although the studies vary in quality, several good introductions such as the ones by Drummond (1981) provide a basic interpretation of the nature of economic evaluation and an appreciation of the decision making required at all levels.

The Purpose of Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations answer the following questions to provide an objective set of criteria for making choices among alternatives given scarce resources:

  • Are health services, and the like, worth doing given limited resources?
  • Are we satisfied with the way health resources are used among the different courses of action chosen?

The purpose of an economic evaluation is to compare alternative courses of action that are solutions to the same problem. Without systematic analysis, it is difficult to clearly identify the alternative uses for resources and the opportunity cost of employing one alternative over another in solving a problem. For example, Messonnier, Corso, Teutsch, Haddix, and Harris (1999) suggest that a health department may need to evaluate the efficiency of a diabetes prevention program or a bicycle helmet initiative in reducing the number of disability days in a population.

Cost

Costs are the value of the resources used for any particular course of action. The type and scope of costs depend on the analysis viewpoint (i.e., society, government, patient, employer, program agency). When in doubt, it is best to go to the broadest or societal viewpoint. The real cost of any alternative is measured not by the budgetary allocations but by the health output that could have been achieved through some other alternative that has been foregone because of the commitment of resources or inputs to the alternative in question. This cost is the opportunity cost of the alternative considered and is compared with the alternative's benefits.

Direct costs are the actual expenses incurred by participating in the alternative. This includes the medical expenses, transportation costs, and other training costs that can be part of implementing the alternative. Indirect costs are the productivity losses associated with the course of action, which reflect the opportunity costs of using one alternative and foregoing another. For example, this could include the waiting time for appointments and the transportation time as part of the participation in a course of action. In the private perspective, transfer costs are also included since they reflect changes in payments for individuals, providers, or organizations. From the societal view, direct and indirect costs are included but not transfer costs, since these are not resources used. Overall, economic costs go beyond simply listing expenditures, since opportunity costs need to be reflected.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading