Cost-benefit analysis: The ``gold standard'' re-examined

The dissertation reviews the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Panel) convened by the US Public Health Service in 1993 in four areas: aggregation of costs and benefits, methods of estimating resources used, definition of population impacted and perspective used in cost benefit analysis. Financial data from a clinical trial was used to test whether different approaches in each of the above four areas would change the net benefit resulting from a cost benefit analysis. Differences in aggregation of cost and benefit resulted in the same net benefit, but not the same cost/benefit ratios. Differences in resource use estimation methods, population subgroups definitions and perspectives all produced different net benefits. Difference in perspective resulted in different and often opposing decisions as to whether the proposed intervention from the clinical trial should be implemented. ^