期刊文献+

社会意愿支付法确定成本效果阈值的介绍与思考 被引量:5

Introduction and consideration of social willing-to-pay method to determine cost-effectiveness thresholds
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:介绍并分析社会意愿支付法的基本理论,为我国成本效果阈值的确定提供一定的方法论基础。方法:总结社会意愿支付法的优缺点,并与我国实际情况相结合,明确其对我国成本效果阈值确定的借鉴意义。结果:社会意愿支付法有体现民众意愿、随经济发展水平变化等优点、同时在理论角度、实践角度、制度角度以及方法本身角度等方面均存在一定的争议。结论:社会意愿支付法是最常用的成本效果阈值确定方法之一,在理论与实践等方面均有着独特的优势,运用该方法将会对我国的成本效果阈值科学确定起到积极的推进作用。 Objective: To introduce and analyze the basic theory of social willing-to-pay method, as a methodology basis for determining cost-effectiveness thresholds in China. Methods: The advantage and disadvan- tage of social willing-to-pay method were summarized, and combined with Chinese concrete circumstance the mean- ing for determination of cost-effectiveness thresholds in China was clarified. Results: Social willing-to-pay method incarnated the public willing, and had the advantages flexible with the level of economic development. At the same time there were also some disputes in theory, practice, system, and methodology. Conclusions: Social willing-to- pay method is the most common determining method of cost-effectiveness thresholds; it has unique advantages in theory and practice. The application of this method will exert positive effects in the determination of cost-effective- ness thresholds.
作者 宗欣 孙利华
出处 《中国新药杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第2期138-140,共3页 Chinese Journal of New Drugs
关键词 社会意愿支付法 成本效果阈值 优点 争议 social willing-to-pay methods cost-effectiveness threshold advantage issue
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

  • 1Frank A S.Valuing health care:costs,benefits,and effectivenessof pharmaceuticals and other medical technologies[]..1995
  • 2Martin Buxton.Looking for willingness-to-pay(WTP)thresholdfor a QALY-does it make sense?A practical view[].ISPORth Annual European Congress.2006
  • 3Brouwer,WBF,Koopmanschap,MA.On the Economic Foundations of CEA. Gentlemen (m/f), take your positions![].Journal of Health Economics.2000
  • 4Adrian T,Clive P,Nancy D.Cost-effectiveness Thresholds:Economic and Ethical Issues[]..2002
  • 5BIRCH S,GAFNI A.Economists’’dream or nightmareMaximi-zing health gains from available resources using the NICE guide-lines[].Journal of Health Economics.2007

同被引文献44

  • 1仲秋.欧盟各国费用控制及卫生改革[J].国外医学(卫生经济分册),1997,14(2):63-69. 被引量:7
  • 2SLOAN F. Valuing health care: costs, benefits, and effective- ness of Dharmaeeutieals and other medical technologies[M]. Cambridge: Camhridge University Press. 1995:99-124.
  • 3DAVIS R K. Recreation planning as an economic problem[J].Natural resources journal. 1963,3 (2) : 239-249.
  • 4LOOMIS J B, WALSH R G. Recreation economic decisions, comparing benefits and costs[M]. London: Venture Publish- ing, 1997.
  • 5WHYNES D K, WOLSTENHOLME J L, FREW E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales[J]. Health economics, 2004,13(12) : 183-190.
  • 6BYRNE M. Willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year in a study of knee osteoarthritis [J]. Medical decision mak- ing, 2005,25 (6) : 655-666.
  • 7KING J T. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implic, ations for societal health care resource allocation [J]. Medical decision making, 2005,25 (6) : 667-677.
  • 8CIRIACY-WANTRUP S V. Capital returns from soil-con- servation practices[J]. Journal of farm economics, 1947,29 (4) : 1181-1196.
  • 9HANEMANN W M. Welfare evaluations in contingent val- uation experiments with discrete responses[Jl. American journal of agricultural economics, 1984,66(3):332-341.
  • 10GYRD-HANSEN D, JENSEN M L, KJAER T. Framing the Willingness-to-pay question: impact on respondse patterns and mean willingness to pay[J]. Health economics, 2014,23 (5) : 550-563.

引证文献5

二级引证文献20

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部