Cost‐effectiveness analysis with risk aversion

Joshua Graff Zivin

Health Economics, 2001, vol. 10, issue 6, 499-508

Abstract: 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. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2001
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.601

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:6:p:499-508

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().