|
|
eLetters is an online forum for ongoing
peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish
to respond to and click on the link that reads
"eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of
eLetters are open to all health care professionals
and experts in related fields.
eLetters to:
-
- ARTICLE:
Barbara Law, Catherine Fitzsimon, Lee Ford-Jones, Noni MacDonald, Pierre Déry, Wendy Vaudry, Elaine Mills, Scott Halperin, Andrea Michaliszyn, and Marc Rivière
- Cost of Chickenpox in Canada: Part I. Cost of Uncomplicated Cases
Pediatrics 1999; 104: 1-6
[Abstract]
[Full text]
[PDF]
|
|
eLetters published:
-
Societal Costs with a Human Face
- David Bishai
(9 August 1999)
|
Societal Costs with a Human Face |
9 August 1999 |
|
|
David Bishai, Assistant Professor Department of Population & Family Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health
Send letter to journal:
Re: Societal Costs with a Human Face
dbishai{at}jhsph.edu David Bishai
|
The cost of illness approach to chickenpox that Law et al. carry out
is a technical masterpiece. It measures all of the standard elements of
the standard cost of illness (COI) model with rigor and thoroughness, but
it is missing something. There is no itching, no tears, no calamine on the
carpet. When a child is sick with chickenpox, the child is miserable,
the parents are miserable. If the authors were cloistered economists, I
would understand an exercise in measurement that ignored the itch, but the
authors clearly know clinical chickenpox extremely well.
If the goal is to answer to the question "What dollar amount measures
the well-being of a Canadian Society without chickenpox?" the answer given
by the standard COI approach is incomplete. Society's parents don't like
having sick children, and the medical bills and the lost work are only a
(small) part of the lost well-being. By staying inside the tired COI
paradigm, the article lost an important opportunity to advance the field
by putting a human face on the costs of chickenpox. Such a human face
could have been achieved by designing clinical vignettes of chickenpox
(with and without lost work and medical bills) and applying willingness to
pay (WTP) techniques to assess parents readiness to trade money for
changes in the probability that their child would enter such a state of
misery. Indeed, in a functioning private market for chickenpox vaccine, the
money would be traded to avoid not just medical costs and lost work but
because of an altruistic concern for children's well-being. A society
made up of homo economicus parents like those in your model would be
dreary and unpleasant.
Physicians and the public often find economics distasteful precisely
because the prevailing model of human behavior and human value has such
little correspondence with life. The economists of the world are looking
to the clinicians for leadership here. Clearly, the standard answers are
wrong. WTP gives the outline of the road ahead, but we are still waiting
for a doctor to pick up the torch. |
| |
|