The fourth chapter is targeted mainly at readers who wish to quantify how much benefits and costs are generated by future or existing policies and programmes. The chapter compares the authors’ basic methodology for wellbeing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with existing approaches to decide on public resource allocations. The main comparison is with cost-benefit analysis (CBA), but they also compare it with multi-criterion approaches, social rates of return analyses, and business case scenarios or impact assessments. The authors start with a quick reminder of their basic methodology for wellbeing CEA, after which they sketch the current practice of CBA, highlighting the differences in a stylized, non-technical manner. They also sketch the relationship between WELLBYs (wellbeing years) and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), deriving a proper translation between the two measures, which will culminate in the important distinction between the individual willingness-to-pay for a WELLBY and the social costs of producing a WELLBY. They then answer some crucial questions as to how more wellbeing knowledge can be incorporated into existing approaches, including the question of the monetization of wellbeing effects for current-practice CBA. Apart from analysts, this chapter is also of interest to academics in the fields of health and wellbeing as it discusses in depth the differences between WELLBYs and QALYs. The discussion on wellbeing approaches from around the world is of importance to all those tasked with embedding wellbeing into their own country’s public-sector systems.
PRM117 - MULTI-COMPARATOR ICERS IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY
