Valuing Health: Evolution, Revolution, Resistance, and Reform.
A number of methods have sought to determine the value of interventions and services that promote health, even when no agreement exists on the proper way to determine and define "value." Previous valuation efforts began simply by counting deaths or measuring life expectancy, slowly evolving to the widespread use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as the de facto normative standard for medical interventions. Users of CEA recognize that the method is incomplete. Further, no meaningful agreement exists on how best to apply CEA in decision settings because of either inadequacies in the CEA framework or lack of consensus on how to use it in a setting with budget constraints. Yet efforts to value health still predominantly use (and continue to recommend) this limited framework. Is this owing to a lack of new ideas and motivation, resistance to change, or an aversion to embrace more comprehensive systems approaches? We argue that tools of systems engineering can advance our capabilities, but they have had only limited use in health policy. We identify some reasons and specifically highlight the promise of systems-analytic platforms-such as multicriteria decision support systems-and the need to make them more accessible for different uses in real situations with real consequences. We also explore the need for comparative testing of different multicriteria approaches (including direct comparisons with CEA) to learn when and by how much the recommendations differ and what the consequences might be.
['Phelps|Charles E|CE|', 'Madhavan|Guruprasad|G|']
D002017:Budgets D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis D003657:Decision Making D020000:Decision Support Systems, Clinical D006291:Health Policy D006801:Humans D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years
systems engineering budget and resource analysis decision support systems multi-criteria decision analysis