Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:12:11.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Perspective in Defining Economic Measures for the Evaluation of Medical Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Amy J. Davidoff
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Neil R. Powe
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

Abstract

Perspectives in an economic analysis of medical technology reflect who makes decisions about the use of or payment for medical resources. Commonly used perspectives include those of providers, insurers, the individual, and society. Perspective is a critical determinant of study design, affecting the time horizon, types of resources considered, and economic cost measures assigned to those resources. Individuals involved in technology assessment for either research or policy-making purposes should be aware of the complexities of defining costs from different perspectives.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Adams, M. E., McCall, N. T., Gray, D. T. et al. Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Medical Care, 1992, 30, 231–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Berman, H. J., Weeks, L. E., & Kukla, S. F.The financial management of hospitals. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1990.Google Scholar
3.Detsky, A. S., & Naglie, I. G.A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1990, 113, 147–54.Google Scholar
4.Drummond, M. F.Allocating resources. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 7792.Google Scholar
5.Drummond, M. F.Principles of economic appraisal in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
6.Eisenberg, J. M.Clinical economics: A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 262, 2879–86.Google Scholar
7.Eisenberg, J. M., Koffer, H., & Finkler, S. A.Economic analysis of a new drug: Potential savings in hospital operating costs for the use of a once-daily regimen of a parenteral cephalosporin. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 1984, 6, S909–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Eisenberg, J. M., Koffer, H., Glick, H. A. et al. What is the cost of nephrotoxicity associated with aminoglycosides? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 107, 900–09.Google Scholar
9.Finkler, S. A.The distinction between cost and charges. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1982, 96, 102–09.Google Scholar
10.Fullarton, G. M., Darling, K., Williams, J. et al. Evaluation of the cost of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. British Journal of Surgery, 1994, 81, 124–26.Google Scholar
11.Hlatky, M. A., Lipscomb, J., Nelson, C. et al. Resource use and cost of initial coronary revascularization. Circulation, 1990, 82, 208–13.Google Scholar
12.Hlatky, M. A., Morris, K. G., Pieper, K. S. et al. Randomized comparison of the cost and effectiveness of iopamidol and diatrizoate as contrast agents for cardiac angiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1990, 16, 871–77.Google Scholar
13.Kukla, S. F.Cost accounting and financial analysis for the hospital administrator. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Lave, J. R., Pashos, C. L., Anderson, G. F. et al. Costing medical care: Using Medicare administrative data. Medical Care, 1994, 32, JS7789.Google Scholar
15.Luce, B. R., & Elixhauser, A.Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 5775.Google Scholar
16.Nicholson, W.Microeconomic theory. Chicago: The Dryden Press, 1989, chapter 11.Google Scholar
17.Powe, N. R., Davidoff, A. J., Moore, R. D. et al. Net costs from three perspectives of using low versus high osmolality contrast medium in diagnostic angiocardiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1993, 21, 1701–09.Google Scholar
18.Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. Technical Appendixes to the Report and Recommendations to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 03 1, 1988.Google Scholar
19.Rettig, R. A., & Levinsky, N. G. (eds.) Kidney failure and the federal government. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.Google Scholar
20.Taube, C. A., & Goldman, H. H.State strategies to restructure psychiatric hospitals: A selective review. Inquiry, 1989, 26, 146–56.Google Scholar
21.Udvarhelyi, I. S., Colditz, G. A., Rai, A. B., & Epstein, A. M.Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature: Are the methods being used correctly? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992, 116, 238–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.United States Congress. House of Representatives. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Reauthorization Act of 1992 (H.9109-H.9112). 1992.Google Scholar
23.United States Congress. House of Representatives. Health Security Act (H.3600). 1993.Google Scholar
24.United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Benefit design in health care reform: Background paper—Patient cost sharing. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993, OTA-BP-H-112.Google Scholar
25.United States General Accounting Office. Millions in end-stage renal disease expenditure shifted to employer health plans. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992.Google Scholar
26.Warner, K. E., & Luce, B. R.Cost-benefit and Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care: Principles, practice and potential. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press, 1982.Google Scholar
27.Weinstein, M. C.Economic assessments of medical practices and technologies. Medical Decision Making, 1981, 1, 309–30.Google Scholar
28.Weinstein, M. C.Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 93103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed