This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ganiats, T. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ganiats, T. G. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Genetic Testing Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Justifying Prenatal Screening and Genetic Amniocentesis Programs by Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

A Re-evaluation

A strength of cost-effectiveness analysis is the presentation of all relevant clinical options, variables, and outcomes and the placement of values on the outcomes Despite success in many fields of health policy, cost-effectiveness analysts have failed to provide a complete evaluation of prenatal screening and genetic amniocentesis programs Specifically, all pub lished cost-effectiveness analyses of these programs at best only partially acknowledge the potential life of the aborted fetus. These incomplete evaluations not only violate some basic principles of cost-effectiveness analysis, they also produce conclusions that may be misleading. Ultimately, society must answer two basic questions regarding the use of cost- effectiveness to justify prenatal screening programs: Is cost-effecfiveness analysis an ap propriate tool for the evaluation of these programs? If so, then what are the outcomes of interest? This paper first shows that the current literature does not present a complete evaluation of these programs. The ramifications of this incomplete evaluation are presented from several perspectives. Finally, given the problems associated with the use of cost- effectiveness analysis, the article suggests that cost-effectiveness analysis is not yet an appropriate tool to justify prenatal screening or genetic amniocentesis programs Key words: amniocentesis; abortion; cost-effectiveness analysis; health policy. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:45-50)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 16, No. 1, 45-50 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600112


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Rozenberg, L. Malagrida, H. Cuckle, I. Durand-Zaleski, I. Nisand, F. Audibert, C. Benattar, S. Tribalat, M. Cartron, P. Lemarie, et al. Down's syndrome screening with nuchal translucency at 12+0-14+0 weeks and maternal serum markers at 14+1-17+0 weeks: a prospective study Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2002; 17(4): 1093 - 1098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R E Gilbert, C Augood, R Gupta, A E Ades, S Logan, M Sculpher, J H P van der Meulen, E. M Wallace, and S. Mulvey Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies Commentary: Results may not be widely applicable Authors' response BMJ, August 25, 2001; 323(7310): 423 - 423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Serving the Family From Birth to the Medical Home. Newborn Screening: A Blueprint for the Future - A Call for a National Agenda on State Newborn Screening Programs Pediatrics, August 1, 2000; 106(2): 389 - 422. [Full Text]