Anti-social welfare functions: a reply to Hansen et al [erratum appears in J Health Econ. 2005 Sep;24(5):1054]

We could reasonably expect society to give at least the same weight to the marginal utility of the poor as to the rich, and to the marginal utility of the ill as compared to the healthy. Whilst Hansen et al. [Journal of Health Economics (2004)], may be said to link CEA and CBA within a welfarist framework, the assumptions they require are inconsistent with these types of ethical preferences. Thus, the degree to which they employ a reasonable social welfare function is doubtful. This paper argues that any link between CEA and CBA will occur not within a welfarist framework but instead within a non-welfarist one in which it is unlikely that CBA results could be easily transformed into cost-effectiveness ratios

Measuring the societal value of lifetime health

This paper considers two societal concerns in addition to health maximisation: first, concerns for the societal value of lifetime health for an individual; and second, concerns for the value of lifetime health across individuals. Health-related social welfare functions (HRSWFs) have addressed only the second concern. We propose a model that expresses the former in a metric – the adult healthy-year equivalent (AHYE) – that can be incorporated into standard HRSWFs. An empirical study based on this formulation shows that both factors matter: health losses in childhood are weighted more heavily than losses in adulthood and respondents wish to reduce inequalities in AHYEs

Measuring the societal value of lifetime health

This paper considers two societal concerns in addition to health maximisation: first, concerns for the societal value of lifetime health for an individual; and second, concerns for the value of lifetime health across individuals. Health-related social welfare functions (HRSWFs) have addressed only the second concern. We propose a model that expresses the former in a metric – the adult healthy-year equivalent (AHYE) – that can be incorporated into standard HRSWFs. An empirical study based on this formulation shows that both factors matter: health losses in childhood are weighted more heavily than losses in adulthood and respondents wish to reduce inequalities in AHYEs

Using Financial Incentives and Improving Information to Increase Labour Market Success: A Non-Parametric Evaluation of the 'Want2Work' Programme

The `Want2Work´ programme was designed to help individuals back into work. This article uses propensity score matching to evaluate the success of a policy that cannot otherwise be evaluated using standard parametric techniques. Using a range of estimation methods, sub-samples and types of job, the scheme was successful. Our most conservative estimates indicate that participants were 4-7 percentage points more likely to find employment than a control group of non-treated job-seekers. Effects were even stronger for Incapacity Benefit recipients. Moreover, there is little evidence that participants were placed in low quality or temporary jobs

A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint

Background: Hip replacement (arthroplasty) surgery is a highly successful treatment for patients with severe symptomatic arthritis of the hip joint. For older patients, several designs of Total Hip Arthroplasty have shown excellent results in terms of both function and value for money. However, in younger more active patients, there is approximately a 50% failure rate at 25 years for traditional implants. Hip resurfacing is a relatively new arthroplasty technique. In a recent review of the literature on resurfacing arthroplasty it was concluded that the short-term functional results appear promising but some potential early disadvantages were identified, including the risk of femoral neck fracture and collapse of the head of the femur. The aim of the current study is to assess whether there is a difference in functional hip scores at one year post-operation between Total Hip Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Secondary aims include assessment of complication rates for both procedures as well cost effectiveness. Methods/design: All patients medically fit for surgery and deemed suitable for a resurfacing arthroplasty are eligible to take part in this study. A randomisation sequence will be produced and administered independently. After consenting, all patients will be clinically reviewed and hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed through questionnaires. The allocated surgery will then be performed with the preferred technique of the surgeon. Six weeks post-operation hip function will be assessed and complications recorded. Three, six and 12 months post-operation hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed. Additional information about patients' out-of-pocket expenses will also be collected

Understanding Harris' understanding of CEA: is cost effective resource allocation undone?

We summarise and evaluate Harris' criticisms of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and the alternative processes he commends to health care decision makers. In contrast to CEA, Harris' asserts that individuals have a right to life-saving treatment that cannot be denied on the basis of their capacity to benefit. We conclude that, whilst Harris' work has challenged the proponents of CEA and quality-adjusted life years to be explicit about the method's indirect discriminatory characteristics, his arguments ignore important questions about what ‘lives saved’ mean. Harris also attempts to avoid opportunity cost by advocating the same chance of treatment for every person desiring treatment. Using a simple example, we illustrate that an ‘equal chances’ lottery is not in the interest of any patient, as it reduces the chance of treatment for all patients by leaving some of the health budget unspent