prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |review
A decade later, the gathering pace of technological development, an aging population and other pressures on resources forced the question: "how should we allocate our scarce resources?" to be asked with increasing frequency. The American school of early pioneers such as Klarman, Fein and Rice began publishing descriptive studies called "cost-of-illness" studies dedicated to calculating the burden to society of particular problems (e.g road traffic accidents, mental illness, infectious diseases). In the 1970s economists began trying to adapt evaluative techniques of classic economics such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) to health care and to incorporate the descriptive element of Cost-of-Illness methodology into the analytical framework of CBA. This decade saw further development of such techniques with the introduction of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA). The creation in the late 1970s of a single measure of outcome combining quantity and quality of life reflects people's preferences for health status (the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year or QALY - pronounced QUALY) led to the birth of Cost-Utility-Analysis (CUA), a sibling of CEA. There has been a steady increase in published economic evaluations during the 1980s with a relative demise in popularity of CBA to the advantage of CEA. This factor is probably due in part to methodological difficulties of CBA.