<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Crainich, D.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/14085/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Aversion to health inequalities and priority setting in health care (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14347/</link>
      <pubDate>2008-12-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Traditionally aversion to health inequality is modelled through a concave utility function over health outcomes. Bleichrodt et al. [Bleichrodt, H., Diecidue E., Quiggin J., 2004. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. Journal of Health Economics 23, 157-171] have suggested a "dual" approach based on the introduction of explicit equity weights. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how priorities in health care are determined in the framework of these two models. It turns out that policy implications are highly sensitive to the choice of the model that will represent aversion to health inequality.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Aversion to Health Inequalities and Priority Setting in Health Care (Research Paper)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/11074/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Traditionally aversion to health inequality is modelled through a concave utility function over
health outcomes. Bleichrodt et al. (2004) have suggested a "dual" approach based on the
introduction of explicit equity weights. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how priorities
in health care are determined in the framework of these two models. It turns out that policy
implications are highly sensitive to the choice of the model that will represent aversion to
health inequality.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Comorbidities and the Willingness to Pay for Health Improvements (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10997/</link>
      <pubDate>2003-10-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We show that the willingness to pay for health improvements increases with the severity and probability of occurrence of comorbidities. This result, which is obtained under mild restrictions on the shape of the utility function, has important implications for cost benefit studies applied to health care. In particular it implies that the discrimination of the elderly, believed to be implicit in cost benefit analysis, is less of a problem than commonly thought.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The Effect of Comorbidities on Treatment Decisions (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/10996/</link>
      <pubDate>2003-09-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Medical decision analyses typically focus on one disease, that is, on one source of risk. In many medical decisions multiple sources of risk co-exist, however. This paper analyzes the effect of such comorbidities on treatment decisions. The effect of comorbidities on treatment decisions depends primarily on the way in which the patient’s attitude to health status risks varies with duration. In the QALY model comorbidities do not affect treatment decisions. This property of the QALY model can be used as a diagnostic test of its descriptive and prescriptive validity.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>