Talk:Cost-effectiveness analysis

Value of Human Life

Regardless of the true value of human life, I question whether the following statement is even meaningful: In health economics a figure of US$50000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is often suggested as the upper limit of an acceptable ICER. The ICER is a ratio of cost to benefit. As such, it is a unitless measure. US$50000, on the other hand has the units that you would normally expect in a cost or a benefit. I think the author intended to say this: Decisions regarding whether to do something vs. not do that thing depend on the ICER of doing it. If the ICER is less than one, then it makes sense to do it, but not otherwise. If the benefit is very large, then the ICER may still be less than one even if the cost is also large. For this reason, a proponent of a particular course of action might be motivated to frabricate an excessively large benefit in order to justify high costs and still end up with an ICER less than one. To prevent execessive valuation of benefits, it is reasonable to suggest upper limits to the dollar value of benefits that are hard to quantify. In health economics a figure of US$50000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is often suggested as an acceptable upper limit of the benefit of human life for use in calculating ICER. As you can see from my efforts to correct the statement, the whole thing got quickly out of hand. One reasonable way to handle this is to simply blow away all the incendiary comments about human life, which are not particularly relevant to a generic discussion of cost-benefit ratios. But that would leave this stub pretty much devoid of content. Another approach would be to invent another example; one a little more mundane, perhaps, but one that would serve as a better illustration of the topic. Thoughts, anyone? --GraemeMcRae 22:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC) It's a ratio of monetary cost to health effects, so it has units of 'currency per effect' (for comparison, velocity is a ratio of distance to time, and has units of metres per second). So the quoted statement is meaningful. Wikid 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "cost effective" measures section

Am going to remove the section on CEA in environmental economics - this is a reference to cost-effective measures which is quite different to cost-effectiveNESS analysis. This belongs in another article - probably in the article on the Rio declaration. I've copied it here in case anyone disagrees and wishes to put it back, or put it elsewhere.

"CEA in environmental economics

In environmental terms, "cost-effective measures" allude to various (mostly industrial) attempts to prevent environmental degradation as written in principle 15 of the Rio declaration of the Earth Summit conference 1992." OceanKiwi (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues in cost-effectiveness analysis

• CEA results (cost-effectiveness data) are confronted with ethical analysis at a management level. MaynardClark (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 16:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Cost-effectiveness analysis → Cost–effectiveness analysis – The regular dash in the name should be substituted with an en dash since it is used "to connect symmetric items", see Dash#En_dash. Also see the related article Cost–utility analysis where the article title already is correctly using the en dash. Lymoz (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Cost-effectiveness" is a compound modifier, not a pair of symmetric items. A hyphen is appropriate. kennethaw88 • talk 02:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. To put the argument another way, this is the analysis of "cost effectiveness", whereas the other is the analysis of "cost vs utiliity". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per kennethaw88's point. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Economic and management science

Factors of production 41.116.129.16 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)