Cost-effectiveness, incompleteness and discrimination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This paper argues that cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector introduces a discrimination risk that has thus far been underappreciated and outlines some approaches one can take toward this. It is argued that appropriate standards used in cost-effectiveness analysis in the healthcare sector fail to always fully determine an optimal option, which entails that cost-effectiveness analysis often leaves decision makers with large sets of permissible options. Larger sets of permissible options increase the role of decision makers’ biases, whims, and prejudices, which means that the discrimination risk increases. Two ways of mitigating this are identified: tinkering with standards used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and outlining anti-discrimination guidelines for decision makers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)163–173
Number of pages11
JournalCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Volume32
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023
Externally publishedYes

Subject classification (UKÄ)

  • Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
  • Economics
  • Medical Ethics

Free keywords

  • QALY
  • discrimination
  • cost-effectiveness
  • healthcare rationing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness, incompleteness and discrimination'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this