@article{SurethKalkuhlEdenhoferetal.2023,
  author    = {Sureth, Michael and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan},
  title     = {A welfare economic approach to planetary boundaries},
  series = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik},
  volume    = {243},
  journal   = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Oldenbourg},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0021-4027},
  doi       = {10.1515/jbnst-2022-0022},
  pages     = {477 -- 542},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The crises of both the climate and the biosphere are manifestations of the imbalance between human extractive, and polluting activities and the Earth's regenerative capacity. Planetary boundaries define limits for biophysical systems and processes that regulate the stability and life support capacity of the Earth system, and thereby also define a safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Budgets associated to planetary boundaries can be understood as global commons: common pool resources that can be utilized within finite limits. Despite the analytical interpretation of planetary boundaries as global commons, the planetary boundaries framework is missing a thorough integration into economic theory. We aim to bridge the gap between welfare economic theory and planetary boundaries as derived in the natural sciences by presenting a unified theory of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our pragmatic approach aims to overcome shortcomings of the practical applications of CEA and CBA to environmental problems of a planetary scale. To do so, we develop a model framework and explore decision paradigms that give guidance to setting limits on human activities. This conceptual framework is then applied to planetary boundaries. We conclude by using the realized insights to derive a research agenda that builds on the understanding of planetary boundaries as global commons.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MuehlenbruchZhuoBardenheieretal.2019,
  author    = {M{\"u}hlenbruch, Kristin and Zhuo, Xiaohui and Bardenheier, Barbara and Shao, Hui and Laxy, Michael and Icks, Andrea and Zhang, Ping and Gregg, Edward W. and Schulze, Matthias Bernd},
  title     = {Selecting the optimal risk threshold of diabetes risk scores to identify high-risk individuals for diabetes prevention},
  series = {Acta Diabetologica},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Acta Diabetologica},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Mailand},
  issn      = {1432-5233},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00592-019-01451-1},
  pages     = {447 -- 454},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Aims: Although risk scores to predict type 2 diabetes exist, cost-effectiveness of risk thresholds to target prevention interventions are unknown. We applied cost-effectiveness analysis to identify optimal thresholds of predicted risk to target a low-cost community-based intervention in the USA. Methods: We used a validated Markov-based type 2 diabetes simulation model to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of alternative thresholds of diabetes risk. Population characteristics for the model were obtained from NHANES 2001-2004 and incidence rates and performance of two noninvasive diabetes risk scores (German diabetes risk score, GDRS, and ARIC 2009 score) were determined in the ARIC and Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for increasing risk score thresholds. Two scenarios were assumed: 1-stage (risk score only) and 2-stage (risk score plus fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test (threshold 100 mg/dl) in the high-risk group). Results: In ARIC and CHS combined, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the GDRS and the ARIC 2009 score were 0.691 (0.677-0.704) and 0.720 (0.707-0.732), respectively. The optimal threshold of predicted diabetes risk (ICER < \$50,000/QALY gained in case of intervention in those above the threshold) was 7\% for the GDRS and 9\% for the ARIC 2009 score. In the 2-stage scenario, ICERs for all cutoffs >= 5\% were below \$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions: Intervening in those with >= 7\% diabetes risk based on the GDRS or >= 9\% on the ARIC 2009 score would be cost-effective. A risk score threshold >= 5\% together with elevated FPG would also allow targeting interventions cost-effectively.},
  language  = {en}
}