Zivin J G
International Center for Health Outcomes and Innovation Research and Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York 10032, USA.
Health Econ. 2001 Sep;10(6):499-508. doi: 10.1002/hec.601.
This paper discusses why, in a medical context, the standard assumption of a risk-neutral social planner is inappropriate and develops a framework for conducting cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis when social planners are risk-averse. This framework demonstrates that if new medical interventions are variance increasing (decreasing), the risk-neutral approach will approve (reject) projects that should be rejected (accepted). This methodology is applied to two medical interventions that have been previously evaluated and considered cost-effective in the published literature. Since both conclusions assumed risk neutrality we determine the level of societal risk-aversion that would be necessary to reject these new interventions and compare these levels to previous estimates of risk-aversion in the economics literature. We find that for reasonable values of the risk-aversion parameter, only one of the two interventions should be approved. It is our recommendation that the cut-off risk aversion parameter (the level of risk-aversion above which a project would be rejected) should become a standard reported figure in future CE studies.
