Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2014; 76(10): e39-e43
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1355421
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care Based on the Capability Approach

Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse im Gesundheitswesen basierend auf dem Capability Approach
A. Gandjour
1   Management Department, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 October 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

It is well known that Sen’s capability approach and preference utilitarianism have different distributional values. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Sen’s capability approach might be operationalised for allocation decisions and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. The paper identifies several requirements for measuring health or well-being in line with the capability approach. Among them is the need for objective assessments of capabilities. This paper also shows that from the perspective of the capability approach a portion of productivity changes are irrelevant for allocation decisions.

Zusammenfassung

Bekanntermaßen haben der Capability Approach nach Sen und der Präferenzutilitarismus unterschiedliche Verteilungsimplikationen. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es zu diskutieren, wie der Capability Approach nach Sen für Allokationsentscheidungen und Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen im Gesundheitswesen operationalisiert werden kann. Es werden mehrere Anforderungen an die Messung von Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden nach dem Capability Approach identifiziert. Dazu zählt die objektive Messung von Capabilities (Verwirklichungschancen). Diese Arbeit zeigt auch, dass aus Sicht des Capability Approach ein Teil der Produktivitätsgewinne irrelevant für Allokationsentscheidungen ist.

Key words

resource allocation - cost-effectiveness - capabilities - utilitarianism

Schlüsselwörter

Ressourcenallokation - Kosten-Effektivität - Capabilities - Utilitarismus
 

  • References

  • 1 Olsen JA. Theories of justice and their implications for priority setting in health care. Journal of Health Economics 1997; 16: 625-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics 1991; 10: 21-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Economics 1997; 6: 117-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics 1999; 8: 25-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anand P. QALYs and capabilities: a comment on Cookson. Health Economics 2005; 14: 1283-1286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cookson R. QALYs and the capability approach. Health Economics 2005; 14: 817-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cookson R. QALYs and capabilities: a response to Anand. Health Economics 2005; 14: 1287-1289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mooney G. Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?. Social Science Medicine 2005; 60: 247-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ruger JP. Health, capability, and justice: toward a new paradigm of health ethics, policy and law. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 2006; 15: 102-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science & Medicine 2008; 67: 874-882
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Sen AK. Equality of what?. In: McMurrin S. (ed.). Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Sen AK. The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sen AK. On the foundations of welfare economics: utility, capability, and practical reason. In: Farina F, Hahn F, Vannucci S. (eds.). Ethics, rationality, and economic behaviour. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P. Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Social Science & Medicine 2008; 67: 1190-1198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sen AK. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lelkes O. Knowing what is good for you. Empirical analysis of personal preferences and the “objective good”. Journal of Socio-Economics 2006; 35: 285-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sen AK. Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Sen AK. The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Sen AK. Markets and freedoms: achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in promoting individual freedoms. Oxford Economic Papers 1993; 45: 519-541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sen AK. Why health equity?. Health Economics 2002; 11: 659-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sen AK. Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2004; 32: 315-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gandjour A. Mutual dependency between capabilities and functionings in Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Social Choice and Welfare 2008; 31: 345-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chakraborty A. On a (non-trivial) difference between Sen and Nussbaum on the capability approach. 3rd Conference on the Capability Approach. Pavia: University of Pavia; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Salais R. Social exclusion and capability. http://www.idhe.ens-cachan.fr/ric0701.pdf Accessed 15.05.07
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nussbaum MC. Women and human development: a capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nussbaum MC. Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Nussbaum MC. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 2003; 9: 33-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Torrance GW. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research 1972; 7: 118-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 1976; 10: 129-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sen AK. Justice: means versus freedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1990; 19: 111-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1989; 5: 34-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mooney G, Russell E. Equity in health care: the need for a new economics paradigm?. In: Scott A, Maynard A, Elliott R. (eds.). Advances in Health Economics. Chichester: Wiley; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2005; 4: 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care 2002; 40: 113-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Singer P. A response to Martha Nussbaum. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hamlin A. Welfare. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P. (eds.). A companion to contemporary political philosophy. (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell; 2007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Harsanyi JC. A preference-based theory of well-being and a rule utilitarian theory of morality. In: Leinfellner W, Köhler E. (eds.). Game theory, experience, rationality: foundations of social sciences, economics and ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lewinsohn-Zamir D. The objectivity of well-being and the objectives of property. New York University Law Review 2003; 78: 1669-1754
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Harsanyi JC. Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research 1977; 44: 623-656
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research 1980; 28: 206-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Coast J, Smith R, Lorgelly P. Should the capability approach be applied in health economics?. Health Economics 2008; 17: 667-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Alkire S. The capability approach to the quality of life. Working paper prepared for the Working Group „Quality of Life” 2008 Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Dworkin R. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1977
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Ng YK. Utility, informed preference, or happiness?. Social Choice and Welfare 1999; 16: 197-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Johansson PO. Altruism in cost-benefit analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 1992; 2: 605-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sen AK. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen AK. (eds.). The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Davis JB. The theory of the individual in economics: identity and values. London: Routledge; 2003
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar