Talk:Health economics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rewrite needed

I only browsed through the bickering below, but in general, the page in question appears to be more "healthcare economics" than "health economics". Health economics has to do with everything health related, from substance abuse and epidemiology and health outcomes to insurance and gov't policies (those are what is considered by most to be "healthcare" topics). It comes down to markets. There is a market for "health" (if people eat big macs, do they have more heart attackts) and a market for "healthcare" (how will medicare change rx consumption). The boundry isn't discrete, but in a lot of cases they are easy to identify. This page could use a collaboration to rewrite from scratch.


"Health economics is a branch of economics concerned with the formal analysis of costs, benefits, management and consequences of health care. Health economics often uses mathematical models to synthesise data from biostatistics and epidemiology for support of medical decision making, both for individuals and for wider health policy."


An important note on the above definition

The health economics branch analyses both microeconomic and macroeconomic issues. The former include the factors shaping the demand for health and health care, the elasticity of demand with respect to the price of health services, the income and the individual preferences of the counsumer, the production process of goods and services related to health, and the various costs and the factors that influencing them. The latter,among other, include the problems of the health system as a whole, the health expenditures and their impact on the economy of a country, and the equilibrium of demand and supply at a macroeconomic level.


With this in mind the above definition, except of the fact that it is not a complete definition of health economics, it is also wrong and hence misleading. The author of the above definition provides a (wrong) definition of health economic evaluation which aims to inform the decision maker of the most efficient ways to use health care resources by weighting benefits against costs, and not of health economics. In addition, health economics despite the fact that it uses data from biostatistics and epidimiology is a distinctive discipline. Health management is also a different discipline. Mathematical analysis in health economics is used in theoretical health economics extensively such as hospital economics, and incentives and contracts. Decision analytic modelling in contrast which is used extensively in health economic evaluation uses statistical and econometric methods to evaluate individual interventions and public health programmes.


Obviously the author who insists in restoring this definition of health economics, is either someone who has his background in clinical sciences and naturally has no idea what he is talking about, or somebody whose ego is hurt. In either case the fact that he insists to include this definition on the main page, it does not keep pace with the team spirit and the principle of an accurate information source.


--etronic 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, your previous edits included deleting appropriate links as well as adding non-working links (i.e. health economic evaluation), inappropriate non-encyclopedic remarks (i.e. "note the distinction!"), and your signature to the actual article. You are a smart guy, but you have a bit to learn yourself.
Secondly, I was about to comment that you have good information to add, then I read your last paragraph. Your tirade indicates fully who has the bruised ego. Perhaps you should read these before you presume to lecture others:
Edwardian 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)



Obviously this is the way that some moderators (?) of this site greet their new members.


I had just created an account and tried to write for the first time. It is natural to make some mistakes at the beginning such as deleting some links by accident. The dead link was there because i had to stop writing the article for awhile but i would continue it later. You could had removed the link and not the entire paragraph and then restore the missing links. The same goes for the remark "note the distinction!" which only aimed to draw the attention of the reader to distinguish between the two closely related concepts. The same also goes for the signature. I do not see what is wrong with having my signature there. Anybody in this way can e-mail me and discuss any issues or ask any questions that he/she may have. If this is inappropriate you could have erased it and indicated it here in the discussion area or you could have just sent an e-mail.


Finally i know very well that i have good information to add and i certainly don't need you to confirm this. This is what i do for a living. The fact that you kept erasing the entire paragraph without having a clue of what i am talking about is at least strange (and irritating i may add), especially after i provided the relevant reference. I'm glad i wrote only one paragraph and not the entire article i was intending to submit. It would all be for nothing. For the sake of this site i would recommend you to erase the first definition as it is really misleading and to be honest only as comical it can be characterised.


--etronic 00:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • First, don't edit anyone else's entries in the Talk pages but your own.
  • Second, I'm not a moderator.
  • Third, it seems you expect benevolence from others but you don't intend to grant it in return.
  • Fourth, it appears someone gave you useful information in your talk page - reading through that should give you information as to why why the signature and the exclamatory remark were not warranted.
  • Fifth, despite what you may think, the comment regarding your good information wasn't intended to be a confirmation of your expertise, but rather to draw attention that your expertise contrasts with your manners (see the third point).
  • Sixth, keep in mind that your expertise in a particular area doesn't automatically grant you expertise in writing an encyclopedia article.
  • Seventh, you wrote within the text of the article: "The above definition is at least incomplete and hence misleading and should be removed". According to Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes: "Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion." Edwardian 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Bullet 1: Nonsense. I did not edit your entry, i just put a space between my answer and yours. Bullet 2: That's why i put the question mark after the word "moderator". Bullet 3: I do not see where i asked for benevolence or why i should expect it from you. Again nonsense. Bullet 4: My honest mistake. Apologies for not doing so. Bullet 5: Nonsense. I am not the one who was erasing the entire paragraph repeatedly without any explanation. Bullet 6: My additional 4 year expertise in journalism gives me sufficient expertise in writing an encyclopedia article. Bullet 7: I had to finally do something for the fact that you were erasing what i was writing. At this stage i was not aware of the talk page. I would also like to point out that i only wanted to contribute an article on health economics. If i have to read a 200 page encyclopedia handbook first to do so then it certainly does not worth the effort.

NB: This is the last time that i am answering to your nonsense.


--etronic 01:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Bullet 1: The "History" section does not lie.
  • Bullet 2: That's why I answered.
  • Bullet 3: You seemed indignant about the way you were "greeted".
  • Bullet 4: See Bullet 6.
  • Bullet 5: In fact, you did. The "History" section does not lie.
  • Bullet 6: Evidently not.
  • Bullet 7: You shouldn't need to read a handbook to have common sense... or common courtesy. Edwardian 03:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Anyone can see in the history that i only placed a line between your answer and mine. The entire text is untouched. You are either blind or a lier (or something else - use your imagination!) In addition, you are the one who was deleting the correct definition on the main page. I was deleting the wrong one - the one that you were unable to understand that was wrong. Again you are either blind or a lier (or something else - again use your imagination as it is obvious that you have plenty of that).

I have also noted (as everybody can also see from your contributions) that you had been writing in completely irrelevant topics. Obviously you are from those who write a bit of everything without knowing much (or anything) about it. In addition, most of your work on here is rewording, and some minor editing work (links etc) - you have no significant contributions. Despite all that you can still judge which definition of health economics is correct and rule it out accordingly.

And because you seem to be particularly good in plagiarising the encyclopedia manual you may want to have a look again in the Wikipedia:Assume good faith where it says that existing members should treat new members with patience. One cannot learn how to use the whole website within an hour.

Finally as regards your final comment then i have to say that people like you do not deserve courtesy - only disregard. The person that doesn't actually have common sense and was talking crap can be seen clearly seen from the history of these pages. Now go and do your minor editing elsewhere and leave me in peace.


--etronic 04:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


If you insist on the cowardly way of having your say but dismissing mine, so be it. Go in peace. Otherwise, I've placed my reply on my Talk page. Edwardian 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A real kindergarten here!!! -- Brenda, 10/1/2005 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Notable omission

The article ommits one notable contributor (if not founder) of the field of Health Economics, Victor R. Fuchs, who is the Henry J. Kaiser Jr professor emeritus at Stanford University. I took a course in Health Economics and I think I may make one or two edits to the main article soon. I prefer to work offline, do my homework, and then edit.Kyamz 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Kyamz

Overall effort

This is a pretty weak article. Past disagreements, I guess, makes people unwilling to make a serious effort. Health economics may be a low-profile academic discipline, but nevertheless concerns a huge part of the economy and deserves better than this. 82.183.209.109 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree - this page is a bit weak! I've added in a reference to the Williams plumbing diagram as an introduction to the article. Would be good to have a copy of the diagram itself here, but not sure about copyright - I'll ask Macmillan if I can put a copy on here when I get around to it.
I also moved the bullets listing market types to the markets section - it seems more appropriate there, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
It'd be good to structure the whole page around the eight areas in the plumbing diagram?
Would be good to see some discussion on here. If there are no objections, I'll make more changes / additions as and when I get the time.
NB: this is my first edit to a page so please go easy on me :)
--EdW UK 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yree

Next chance I get, I will start working on this page. I think the start is the differences between Health Economics and Economics. I think Phelps and I will have fun. Nmourfield 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the idealogical bias is appropriate to health care economics in general. I think a discussion into the specifics of government intervention within health care is more appropriate. Nmourfield (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Macro analysis

Thanks for Gregalton's welcome to wikipedia. This continues to edit my first Wiki post. I've taken his advice and incorporated the phrase "population externalities" as well as two sources. This also resulted in my correcting the reference to one of the sources--thanks for that too!

The article positions health economics as fully focused on microeconomic analysis. There is a case to be made that multi-regional macroeconomic analysis can contribute significantly to assessing population externalities in healthcare impacts by including systemic interactions across regions and time, especially if conducted using high-end multi-regional equilibrium forecasting models such as REMI or REDYN.

As an example, consider analysing protocol training and tracking for chronic-persistent conditions affecting over half of all US health system costs. Large-scale results from Asheville, NC for diabetes remained robust over a five-year period as reported in the Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (http://japha.metapress.com/link.asp?id=m5nm6h0758753345) and as replicated in a number of cities. New York State and elsewhere corroborated these results for mental health (see New York's five year results at http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/BriefingPapers/BP18.htm). If protocol training and tracking were implemented in context with single-payor resources (i.e., Medicaid, Medicare, S-CHIP, and the Veterans Administration), then it can be posited that...

[a] Demand can be reduced for general hospital services (ERs and hospital stays) and for offices of physicians, only partly offset by less expensive increased demand for clinic and pharmacy services (integrate demand changes in [a] with changes in [b.1] spending on consumer commodities to avoid double counting),

[b] Cost can be reduced [b.1] for individuals (due to reduced co-pays and insurance coverage cost due to reduced ER and physician visits, offset by increases in less expensive pharmacy and clinic visits, resulting in a net increase in disposable income available for non-health purposes), [b.2] for firms (due to reduced health benefit costs, resulting in increased opportunities for capital investment at higher or stable capital/output ratios or for job growth at stable or lower capital/output ratios), and [b.3] for government (due to reduced health benefit costs and health system financing),

[c] Productivity can be increased for the general workforce due to improved protocol outcomes driven by protocol training and tracking under single-payor financing, resulting in [c.1] reduced time lost by workers directly and by workplace team distraction and need-to-cover, and by family workforce time given to caretaking, [c.2] better skills-occupations-requirements alignment due to expanded health portability enabling an increased ability to switch and optimize jobs, [c.3] new capital investment, and [c.4] higher training ROI due to reduced worry and diversion, i.e., a Hawthorne effect, especially as boosted by a reduced benefit burden that lets employers hire proportionately more workers with more education and more vocational or workforce training.

The productivity modeling needs to account for (a) capital and labor factor substitution due to the reduced benefit cost of labor, and (b) effects from improved capital stock, increased skills alignment and training ROI, and reduced direct and secondary sick leave usage. The use of multi-regional sub-national analysis ensures domestic trade flow and commuter shed effects are captured together with regional differences in starting conditions and infrastructure. The point in citing this detail is to demonstrate that healthcare economics includes a basis for macroeconomic multi-regional systemic analysis, not only or primarily microeconomic decision analysis. (71.192.212.228 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) (71.192.212.228 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) (71.192.212.228 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) (71.192.212.228 (talk))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC))(71.192.212.228 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Welcome to wikipedia. The ideas above (if I understand correctly) are fine, although you need above all a source. As an alternative, I'd paraphrase and simplify to something like "Externalities in health care, such as the benefit received by the population when others are vaccinated, can have effects of a macro scale on the economy. For example, there is evidence that better health care results in the workforce receiving more education overall, which increases skills and boosts overall productivity." Just a suggestion.--Gregalton (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research.

This article is full of original research. Could you please update unsourced claims accordingly of which there are many. Supposed (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

human capital versus health capital

How are human and health capital related to each other? how do they differ from each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapset 69 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moral hazard used contrary to meaning

In the text "Insured patients are naturally less concerned about health care costs than they would if they paid the full price of care. The resulting moral hazard drives up costs, as shown by the famous RAND Health Insurance Experiment. Insurers use several techniques to limit the costs of moral hazard, including imposing co-payments on patients and limiting physician incentives to provide costly care. Insurers often compete by their choice of service offerings, cost sharing requirements, and limitations on physicians." moral hazard is used when I can see no evidence of moral hazard. A moral hazard is when I conceal information from you in order to strike a bargain that you would refuse if you knew the information. The cited RAND article does not discuss or mention moral hazard.

Moral hazard is endemic in the US health care system. For example, you can work as a contract worker while young and single without buying expensive individual insurance, expecting to be hired by a big employer with great health care if you get sick knowing that your pre-existing conditions will be covered at the low group rate.

But if you are told you should spend $1000 out of pocket for a colonoscopy because you have a 2% chance of requiring $100,000 in cancer treatment for which $95,000 will be paid by your catastrophic coverage, refusing the treatment is not a moral hazard. Both the insurer who doesn't set the price low enough for the colonoscopy under its rate schedule, and the patient, roll the dice hoping for the 98% chance it isn't needed.

Now I know that conservatives in particular have latched onto the term moral hazard as a vague allegation that any government involvement in health care is immoral like thou shalt not steal or commit adultery, but that is political rhetoric, not objective description of a term which has a fairly precise meaning in the insurance and securities underwriting field. Mulp (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Moral Hazard applies in two directions. Under those few countries that apply the "science" of health economics - that is the UK only - a decision has been made to put a price against the continuing life of a human being. This allows institutions such as Nice to prevent the prescription of treatments that are known to be more effective if the marginal cost of the drug is higher than the defined price. This therefore removes from the NHS the Moral Hazard of restricting treatments to patients in the sure knowledge that this will cause a reduced standard of life and a shortened life span.

Could I suggest that the complexity of the formulae used in calculating the acceptability hides the fact that a moral judgement has been made on the value of a human life and that as the calculation of a value of a life is no way a scientific one then Health Economics is itself in no way a science. Clientscope (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Economic Evaluation in Germany

IQWiG only conduct benefit assessments and do not consider costs - they therefore do not conduct economic evaluations. The section on Germany/UK should therefore have Germany removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.232.127 (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true any more: "The legislation contained in the Health Care Reform GKV-WSG (statutory health insurance - Act to promote competition) of April 2007 has extended IQWiG's responsibilities. Prior to that, the assessment of drugs was restricted to medical benefit. Now the Institute can also be commissioned to weigh up the costs of drug therapies against the benefit previously obtained." https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/methods_papers/health_economic_evaluation.3022.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.138.14 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Table, sourcing

The content added here, pasted below, is maybe interesting but needs sourcing and the formatting fixed.

Economic evaluation is the comparison of two or more alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and consequences (Drummond et al.). Economists usually distinguish several types of economic evaluation, differing in how consequences are measured:

In cost minimization analysis (CMA), the effectiveness of the comparators in question must be proven to be equivalent. The 'cost-effective' comparator is simply the one which costs less (as it achieves the same outcome). In cost–benefit analysis (CBA), costs and benefits are both valued in cash terms. Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) measures outcomes in 'natural units', such as mmHg, symptom free days, life years gained. Finally cost–utility analysis (CUA) measures outcomes in a composite metric of both length and quality of life, the Quality-adjusted life year (QALY). (Note there is some international variation in the precise definitions of each type of analysis).

A final approach which is sometimes classed an economic evaluation is a cost of illness study. This is not a true economic evaluation as it does not compare the costs and outcomes of alternative courses of action. Instead, it attempts to measure all the costs associated with a particular disease or condition. These will include direct costs (where money actually changes hands, e.g. health service use, patient co-payments and out of pocket expenses), indirect costs (the value of lost productivity from time off work due to illness), and intangible costs (the 'disvalue' to an individual of pain and suffering). (Note specific definitions in health economics may vary slightly from other branches of economics.)

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Barros's comment on this article

Dr. Barros has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The introduction to the entry does not match the areas in the plumbing diagram. At least, it should mention issues of evaluation of health technologies, of market interaction and market equilibrium.

Economic evaluation is used in many countries and not only Germany and the UK. there are other associations http://ashecon.org, http://www.euhea.eu

another useful reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780123756794


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Barros has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference 1: Pedro Pita Barros & Xavier Martinez-Giralt, 2009. "Technological adoption in health care," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 790.09, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Analisi Economica (UAB) and Institut d'Analisi Economica (CSIC).
  • Reference 2: Moreira S & Pita Barros P, 2009. "Double coverage and demand for health care: Evidence from quantile regression," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/21, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Grootendorst's comment on this article

Dr. Grootendorst has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


A seminal 1963 article by Kenneth Arrow, often credited with giving rise to health economics as a discipline, drew conceptual distinctions between health and other goods

between health, healthcare and other goods

In healthcare, the third-party agent is the physician, who makes purchasing decisions (e.g., whether to order a lab test, prescribe a medication, perform a surgery, etc.) while being insulated from the price of the product or service.

depends on the reimbursement scheme -- true under FFS but not under capitation


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Grootendorst has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Paul V. Grootendorst & Lisa R. Dolovich & Anne M. Holbrook & Adrian R. Levy & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2002. "The Impact of Reference Pricing of Cardiovascular Drugs on Health Care Costs and Health Outcomes: Evidence from British Columbia--Volume I: Summary," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 70, McMaster University.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Carrieri's comment on this article

Dr. Carrieri has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


I think the article omits one important research field in health economics: analysis and measurement of health equity.

The paragraph

"In broad terms, health economists study the functioning of healthcare systems and health-affecting behaviors such as smoking"

might be changed as follows:

In broad terms, health economists study the functioning of healthcare systems, health-affecting behaviors (such as smoking, drinking, diet and physical activity) and the distribution of health, health care and health care financing across individuals and socio-economic groups.

I would include also a small section to explain the research in health equity area:

Research on health equity is concerned with the analysis and measurement of inequalities in health [3], health care utilization [1,2] and health care financing [1]. In particular, research is concentrated on inequalities that are of normative interest, i.e. due to socio-economic factors such as income [4] or education.

References: [1] O'Donnell, O., van Doorslaer, E., Wagstaff, A., Lindelow, M., 2008 "Analyzing Health Equity Using Household Survey Data", World Bank: Washington D.C., available at :

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPAH/Resources/Publications/459843-1195594469249/HealthEquityFINAL.pdf

[2] van Doorslaer, E., Koolman, X., Jones,A.M., 2004. “Explaining Income-Related Inequalities in Doctor Utilisation in Europe.” Health Economics 13(7): 629–47.

[3] van Doorslaer, E., Jones,A. M., 2003. “Inequalities in Self-Reported Health: Validation of a New Approach to Measurement.” Journal of Health Economics 22(1):61-87.

[4] Carrieri, V., Jones, A.M., 2016, '"The Income-Health Relationship 'Beyond the Mean': New Evidence from Biomarkers' Health Economics, DOI: 10.1002/hec.3372


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Carrieri has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Vincenzo Carrieri & Cinzia Di Novi & Rowena Jacobs & Silvana Robone, 2012. "Well-being and psychological consequences of temporary contracts: the case of younger Italian employees," Working Papers 079cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Ma's comment on this article

Dr. Ma has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The page has more materials on health services research than health economics. I would say that a good definition is: Health Economics is the study of the interaction between consumers, healthcare providers, and insurers in market and non market settings. Moral hazard and adverse selection and two key concepts. Moral hazard refers to the inefficient consumption of health care because of subsidized prices due to health insurance. Adverse selection refers to consumers' superior information about health status when consumers consider buying insurance policies. Health Economics is a big field, so the page should refer to more substantial cites: the three Handbook of Health Economics published by Elsevier, North Holland should be standard references. Also, the RAND experiment should be included Health Economics overlaps substantially with other fields in economics: Asymmetric Information and Contracts, Industrial Organization and Competition Policies, Development, Public Economics and Regulation. Recent developments also include experiments in health, the applications of advanced econometrics on health market, theoretical models in behavioral economics and applied game theory on various aspects of the interactions between consumers, providers and insurers.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Ma has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Philippe Chone & Ching-to Albert Ma, 2007. "Optimal Health Care Contracts under Physician Agency," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2007-041, Boston University - Department of Economics, revised Sep 2007.
  • Reference 2: Godager, Geir & Iversen, Tor & Albert Ma, Ching-to, 2012. "Competition, Gatekeeping, and Health Care Access," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2012:2, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article

Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


A good article, but it could give some more information on the supply side; how the supply of health services can be organized.

The section on behavior economics is not very informative.

I add some scholars below who may fill in in these areas.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Carbone, Jared C. & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2014. "Individual investments in education and health," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2014:1, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  • Reference 2: Kverndokk, Snorre, 2009. "Why do people demand health?," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2000:5, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Grignon's comment on this article

Dr. Grignon has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article would need to be re-written and better organized, starting with what makes health economics specific: 1) health economists are economists and they believe individuals can and do trade off health against other consumptions: individuals will make the decision to work in hazardous occupations to increase their income (and access more consumption goods), or individuals will make the decision to eat certain foods they like even though this may affect their health. Non economists usually reject such an view: health scientists think that individuals make poorly informed choices and that nobody would rationally choose a hazardous occupation if they knew it were hazardous; sociologists think individuals are not poorly informed but also influenced by social norms (they work in hazardous occupations because that is what people with their background do or are assigned to do). But, 2) health economists also differ from mainstream economists in that health and health care are not standard commodities. Without such an introductory statement, the article is not very helpful. A standard presentation of the content of health economics then works as follows: 1) Demand for health (Health Capital) 2) Derived Demand for Health Care (covers price and income elasticity of demand for health care) 3) The supply of health care (1): understanding the institutional environment under which health care is produced (the not-only-for-profit sector and professional autonomy) 4) The supply of health care (2): are professionals perfect agents of their patients (includes issues around geographic variations in health care spending and outcomes, as well as supplied induced demand) 5) Health Insurance: the welfare aspect of moral hazard in health, and the role of competition in insurance (limited by adverse selection) 6) Health Insurance (2): the role of third party payers in funding health care when professionals are not perfect agents of their patients 7) Innovation in health care and how to finance it (mostly pharmaceuticals) 8) Health Technology Evaluation (which cannot be brought before, as it mattes mostly for innovation) 9) Regulation and the value of life.

Potential references: Contrary to what the article states, the seminal paper is not Arrow 1963 (even though this is a very important paper) but Mushkin 1958 (Selma J. Mushkin, Toward a Definition of Health Economics, Public Health Reports, 73(9), September 1958: 785-794) I would use the following two references to write the article: Jeremiah Hurley, Health Economics, chapter 1 (introduction), McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2010. Anthony Culyer and Joseph P. Newhouse, introduction to the Handbook of Health Economics, volume 1, Elsevier North Holland, 2000. Michael Morrisey and John Cawley, "US Health Economists: Who We Are and What We Do," Health Economics 17 (2008): 535-543 Victor Fuchs, "The Future of Health Economics" Journal of Health Economics 19 (2000): 141-157

Victor Fuchs, Who Shall Live? Health Economics and Social Choice, expanded edition Singapore 1975


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Grignon has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Grignon, Michel & Owusu, Yaw & Sweetman, Arthur, 2012. "The International Migration of Health Professionals," IZA Discussion Papers 6517, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  • Reference 2: Michel Grignon & Bidenam Kambia-Chopin, 2009. "Income and the Demand for Complementary Health Insurance in France," Working Papers DT24, IRDES institut for research and information in health economics, revised Apr 2009.
  • Reference 3: Christopher Longo & Michel Grignon, 2009. "The Value of Fixed-Reimbursement Healthcare Insurance- Evidence from Cancer Patients in Ontario, Canada," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2009-03, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rocco's comment on this article

Dr. Rocco has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


An important topic in health economics is that of the socio-economic determinants of health. Among many others aspects, the socio-economic gradient of health is analyzed, i.e. the strong correlation between the individual socio-economic status and his health. This is a vast subject that attracted a lot of attention, not only in academia, but also from international organizations such as the WHO.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rocco has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Rocco, Lorenzo & Tanabe, Kimie & Suhrcke, Marc & Fumagalli, Elena, 2011. "Chronic diseases and labor market outcomes in Egypt," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5575, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Iversen's comment on this article

Dr. Iversen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


"and the presence of a third-party agent.[2]"

I would also have added third-party payment by private or public insurer.

"Researchers have also documented substantial "practice variations", whereby the treatment also on service availability to rein in inducement and practice variations." also depends on

"Peter Orszag has suggested that behavioral economics is an important factor for improving the healthcare system, but that relatively little progress has been made when compared to retirement policy.[12]" Content difficult to understand

"Though studies have demonstrated mental healthcare to reduce overall healthcare costs, demonstrate efficacy, and reduce employee absenteeism while improving employee functioning, the availability of comprehensive mental health services is in decline" I doubt that the observation of decline applies worldwide

Journals Consider adding: International Journal of Health Economics and Management

http://www.springer.com/public+health/journal/10754


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Iversen has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Godager, Geir & Iversen, Tor & Albert Ma, Ching-to, 2012. "Competition, Gatekeeping, and Health Care Access," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2012:2, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  • Reference 2: Hoel, Michael & Iversen, Tor, 2009. "Impact of the public/private mix of health insurance on genetic testing," HERO On line Working Paper Series 1999:1, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Godager's comment on this article

Dr. Godager has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Who are the Three parties in the triangle mentioned in the second paragraph. I usually think of the insurer as the Third party, the patient and the health care provider being the two main actors.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Godager has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Godager, Geir & Iversen, Tor & Albert Ma, Ching-to, 2012. "Competition, Gatekeeping, and Health Care Access," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2012:2, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
  • Reference 2: Birn, Erik & Godager, Geir, 2009. "Does quality influence choice of general practitioner? An analysis of matched doctor-patient panel data," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2008:3, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Careers

I have removed the section on Careers, which gave mention to a specific (not notable) person and was of little value. If somebody wishes to write a fuller section on careers it could be permissible, though I suspect not. Other Wikipedia articles on sub-disciplines of economics do not discuss careers and I see no reason why health economics should be different. --ChrisSampson87 (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Health economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Arrow 1963 link fixed

I noticed that the link to Kenneth Arrow's 1963 paper was broken. I ended up editing the link and citation to now read: Arrow, Kenneth. (1963) Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. The American Economic Review;53(5):941-973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbounthavong (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

request rephrasing the sentences as below

@Wikid:"Externalities arise frequently when considering health and health care, notably in the context of the health impacts as with infectious disease or opioid abuse. For example, making an effort to avoid catching the common cold affects people other than the decision maker [5][6][7][8] or finding sustainable, humane and effective solutions to the opioid epidemic."

I am now translating [Health economic] into traditional Chinese (somebody had done a partial translation already, I decided to take pains to translate the whole article), can you, or anybody be good enough to rephrase the wordings, so I can better understand them. Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ThomasYehYeh:, here's an attempt at making that paragraph clearer.
Compared to the high-volume, substitutable goods and services considered in standard market economics, health and health care "markets" are often affected by externalities. The value of wearing a mask to reduce transmission of an infectious disease accrues to many people other than the decision-maker [5][6][7][8]. The costs of opioid abuse are born by more people than the drug user. More generally, health care services used by one person may benefit several other people in a family or community [citation needed]. Somej (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 Thanks, I'll use the modified wordings to do the translation.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Somej:
While I'm doing the translation, I wonder why the [citation needed] right after [More generally, health care services used by one person may benefit several other people in a family or community] was left undone?ThomasYehYeh (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
not important; was just a reminder to myself - it would be good to find a suitable source for that sentence. Somej (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Reason for me to raise that question, is because I couldn't find a suitable citation. Thanks again. I'll do the translation later. Have you a nice day.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Health_economics/Archive_1&oldid=1169269424"