Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 29 September 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1204
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1204
A broader perspective is needed that includes potential costs and benefits for all stakeholders
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The choice of perspective is important in the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. For example, in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellences (NICE) technology appraisal of drugs for Alzheimers disease, a major discussion point was whether the costs falling on caregivers should be included as well as costs to the NHS.1
The main argument for adopting a restrictive perspective is that the budget for the NHS is meant to be for improving health. Therefore, the relevant consideration in evaluating interventions is the opportunity cost (in other treatments forgone) on the healthcare budget. But alternatively shouldnt the full social benefits of healthcare interventions be considered? If healthcare interventions have benefits outside the healthcare sector—for example in the criminal justice system, transport sector, or education—shouldnt these be tracked and any budgetary adjustments sorted out separately? And shouldnt health care aim to provide benefits to families and carers as well as
Michael Drummond, professor of health economics1, Helen Weatherly, research fellow1, Brian Ferguson, director2
1 Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, 2 Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory, ARRC, University of York, York YO10 5DD
md18@york.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses