Department of Economics, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 6;20(5):4637. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054637.
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the main way that economic evaluations are carried out in the health care field. However, CEA has limited validity in deciding whether any health care evaluation is socially worthwhile and hence justifies funding. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the economic evaluation method that should be used to help decide what to invest in when the objective is to record the impact on everyone in society. Cost-utility analysis (CUA), which has its roots in CEA, can be converted into CBA under certain circumstances that are not general. In this article, the strengths and weaknesses of CEA relative to CBA are analyzed in stages, starting in its most classical form and then proceeding via CUA to end up as CBA. The analysis takes place mainly in the context of five actual dementia interventions that have already been found to pass a CBA test. The CBA data is recast into CEA and CUA terms in tabular form in order that the contrast been CEA and CBA is most transparent. We find that how much of the fixed budget that is used up to fund other alternatives determines how much is left over to fund the particular intervention one is evaluating.
成本效益分析(CEA)是医疗保健领域进行经济评估的主要方法。然而,CEA 在决定任何医疗保健评估是否具有社会价值并因此值得资助方面的有效性有限。成本效益分析(CBA)是应使用的经济评估方法,以帮助确定在目标是记录对社会每个人的影响时应该投资什么。成本效用分析(CUA)是 CEA 的基础,在某些情况下可以转换为 CBA,但并不普遍。在本文中,分阶段分析了 CEA 相对于 CBA 的优缺点,从其最经典的形式开始,然后通过 CUA 最终转化为 CBA。分析主要在已经通过 CBA 测试的五个实际痴呆症干预措施的背景下进行。将 CBA 数据以表格形式改写为 CEA 和 CUA 术语,以便最透明地对比 CEA 和 CBA。我们发现,用于资助其他替代方案的固定预算中有多少被用完,这决定了用于评估特定干预措施的剩余资金量。