Epistemic and non-epistemic values in economic evaluations of public health

References

• Alkire, S., Comim, F., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). The capability approach. Concept, measures and application. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 476–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand, P. (2005). Capabilities and health. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 299–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand, S., Peter, F., & Sen, A. (2004). Public health, ethics and equity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arndt, C., Distante, R., Hussain, M. A., Østerdal, L. P., Huong, P. L., & Ibraimo, M. (2012). Ordinal welfare comparisons with multiple discrete indicators: A first order dominance approach and application to child poverty. World Development, 40(11), 2290–2301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arndt, C., Hussain, M. A., Salvucci, V., Tarp, F., & Østerdal, L. P. (2016). Poverty mapping based on first-order dominance with an example from Mozambique. Journal of International Development, 28, 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arndt, C., Mahrt, K., Hussain, M. A., & Tarp, F. (2018). A human rights-consistent approach to multidimensional welfare measurement applied to sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 108(August 2018), 181–196. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.022
   Google Scholar
• Arndt, C., Siersbæk, N., & Østerdal, L. P. (2017). Multidimensional first-order dominance comparisons of population wellbeing. In C. Arndt & F. Tarp (Eds.), Measuring poverty and wellbeing in developing countries (pp. 24–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arneson, R. (2016). Does fairness require a multidimensional approach? In M. Adler & M. Fleurbaey (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of well-being and public policy (pp. 588–613). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bognar, G. (2008). Age-weighting. Economics and Philosophy, 24, 167–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bognar, G. (2010). Does cost effectiveness analysis unfairly discriminate against people with disabilities? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(4), 394–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock, D. (2009). Cost-effectiveness and disability discrimination. Economics and Philosophy, 25, 27–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brower, W. B. F., Culyer, A. J., Van Exel, N. J. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. (2008). Welfarism and extra-welfarism. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 325–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cenci, A., & Hussain, M. A. Robustness and equity in evidence-based policy. Conference paper: ‘Statistical Reasoning and Scientific Error’, 1-4 July 2019, Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. https://scientificerror2019.wordpress.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Coast, J., Kinghorn, P., & Mitchell, P. (2015). The development of capability measures in health economics: Opportunities, challenges and progress. The Patient, 8, 119–126.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coast, J., Smith, R., & Lorgelly, P. (2008). Should the capability approach be used in health economics? Health Economics, 6, 667–670.
   Google Scholar
• Cookson, R. (2005). QALYs and the capability approach. Health Economics, 14, 817–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, N. (1985). Just health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1993). Justice in the distribution of healthcare. McGillan Law Journal, 38(4), 883–898.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hansson, O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23(02), 163–183.
   Google Scholar
• Hasman, A. (March 2003). Eliciting reasons: Empirical methods in priority setting. Health Care Analysis, 11(1), 41–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. (2006). Valuing health. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34(3), 246–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. (2012). Preferences, value, choice, and welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. (2015). Valuing health: Well-being, freedom, and Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haydock, A. (1992). QALYs—A threat to our quality of life? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 9(1), 183–188.
   Google Scholar
• Hersch, G. (2015). Can an evidential account justify relying on preferences for well-being policy? Journal of Economic Methodology, 22(3), 280–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, M. A. (2016). EU country rankings’ sensitivity to the choice of welfare indicators. Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, M. A., Jørgensen, M. M., & Østerdal, L. P. (2016). Refining population health comparisons: A multidimensional first order dominance approach. Social Indicators Research, 129(2), 739–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, M. A., Siersbæk, N., & Østerdal, L. P. (2019). Multidimensional Welfare Comparisons of EU Member States Before, During, and After the Financial Crisis: A Dominance Approach. Forthcoming Social Choice and Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• Karimi, M., Brazier, J., & Basarir, H. (2016). The capability approach: A critical review of its application in health economics. Value in Health, 19, 795–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. (2005). Capabilities equality: Basic issues and problems. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klonschinski, A. (2014). ‘Economic imperialism’ in health care resource allocation – how can equity considerations be incorporated into economic evaluation? Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(2), 158–174.
   Google Scholar
• Kuorikoski, J., Lehtinen, A., & Marchionni, C. (2010). Economic modelling as robustness analysis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 541–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Munda, G. (2016). Beyond welfare economics: Some methodological issues. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(2), 185–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, C., Salomon, J., Mathers, C., & Lopez, A. (2002). Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, L. (2012). Pluralism and Objectivism: Cornerstones for interpersonal comparisons. SATS, 13(2), 190–206.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, L., & Axelsen, A. (2017). Capabilitarian sufficiency: Capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(1), 46–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord, E. (1999). Cost–value analysis in health care: Making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nord, E. (2005). Concerns for the worse off: Fair innings versus severity. Social Science & Medicine, 60(2), 257–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: some challenges. Value in Health, 12(1), S10–S15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nord, E., Pinto, J. L., Richardson, J., Menzel, P., & Ubel, P. (1999). Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics, 8, 25–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (1995b). Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1429–1437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord, E., Richardson, J., Street, A., Kuhsec, H., & Singer, P. (1995a). Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values? Health Policy, 34, 79–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Østerdal, L. P. (2003). A note on cost-value analysis. Health Economics, 12, 247–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswald, M. (2015). In a democracy, what should a healthcare system do? A dilemma for public policymakers. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(1), 23–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Permanyer, I., & Hussain, M. A. (2018). First order dominance techniques and multidimensional poverty Indices: An empirical comparison of different approaches. Social Indicator Research, 137(3), 867–893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prah Ruger, J. (2006). Health, capability and justice: Toward a new paradigm of health ethics, policy and Law. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 15(2), 403–482.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). The theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss, J. (2017). Fact-value entanglement in positive economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 24(2), 134–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivlin, M. (2000). Why the fair inning argument is not persuasive. BMC Medical Ethics, 2000(1), 1. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-1-1
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-day.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1976). Welfare inequalities and Rawlsian Axiomatics. Theory and Decision, 7(4), 243–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6, 317–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1979). Personal utilities and public judgements: Or what's Wrong with welfare economics? Economic Journal: Royal Economic Society, 89(355), 537–558.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 1, 195–220.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1986). Prediction and economic theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 407, 3–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1993). Positional objectivity. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(2), 126–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1994). Objectivity and position: Assessment of health and well-being. In L. Chen, A. Kleinman, & N. Ware (Eds.), Health and social Change in International perspective (pp. 116–127). Boston, MA: Harvard school of public health.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred Knopf publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2000). Consequential evaluation and practical Reason. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 477–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2002). Why health equity? Health Economics, 11, 659–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2018). The importance of incompleteness. International Journal of Economic Theory, 14, 9–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A., & Williams, B. (1982). Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, J., Anand, P., Grey, A., Rugkåsa, J., & Yeeles, K. (2013). Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 187–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatapuram, S. (2011). Health justice: An argument from the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, A. (1995). Economics, QALYs and medical ethics — A health economist's perspective. Health Care Analysis, 3(3), 221–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, A. (1997). Intergenerational equity: An Exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Economics, 6, 117–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. (2006). Some varieties of robustness. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(2), 219–240.
   Google Scholar