Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$43.50



View/Hide Left Panel

normative assumptions, depends heavily on the intuitive judgment of decision makers. In contrast, benefit-cost analysis reduces all consequences to a single, monetary quantity: the net expected economic benefit of a project.

The committee decided that an approach that combines essential features of cost-effectiveness analysis and decision analysis would be the most appropriate for ranking vaccines for accelerated development. Such an approach generates substantial information on both the expected health benefits from a vaccine and the costs of achieving those benefits. Unlike the benefit-cost approach, it does not require that a monetary value be placed on health benefits. The proposed method is described in Chapter 3.

REFERENCES

Dalkey, N.C. 1969. The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion. Research Memorandum RM-58888-PR. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation.


Institute of Medicine. 1985. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities, Volume I. Diseases of Importance in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


Keeney, R.L., and H.Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley and Sons.


Office of Technology Assessment. 1980. The Implications of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology. U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Swartzman, D., R.A.Liroff, and K.G.Croke, eds. 1982. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: Politics, Ethics and Methods. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.


Weinstein, M.C., and W.B. Stason. 1977. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N. Engl. J.Med. 296(13):716–721.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement