You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 149 No. 4, April 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  The Pediatric Forum
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Is Universal Neonatal Hemoglobinopathy Screening Cost-effective?-Reply

Robert H. Sprinkle, MD, PhD; Thomas R. Konrad, PhD
Division of Policy and Ethics Duke University-University of North Carolina Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center Box 90290 Duke University Durham, NC 27708

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149(4):466-467.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Bergman, citing our social-cost analysis of universal neonatal hemoglobinopathy screening,1 objects that we did not account for all costs and benefits, for all risks and rewards. He is correct, in a way.

Cost-benefit enthusiasts would attempt a quasicomprehensive accounting, presenting as scientific whatever conclusion their initial assumptions, methodological simplifications, and final sensitivity adjustments left them. Such applications of the social to the natural sciences generate articles that range from the blandly predictable to the genuinely enlightening to the falsely provocative. Some uncover instructive ironies; some locate sensible compromises; others do neither.

We worked in full awareness of the problems to which Bergman justifiably has directed the attention of the ARCHIVES' readers; it was with these and other problems in mind that we chose a "shadow-pricing" mechanism for our cost-benefit commentary, which is really a comparison of two cost-effectiveness ratios. There is ultimately no satisfactory way to compute . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



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





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1995 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.