P A Ubel1, E Nord, M Gold, P Menzel, J L Prades, J Richardson. 1. Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Before cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can fulfill its promise as a tool to guide health care allocation decisions, the method of incorporating societal values into CEA may need to be improved. DESIGN: The study design was a declarative exposition of potential fallacies in the theoretical underpinnings of CEA. Two values held by many people-preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients and preferences to avoid discrimination against people who have limited treatment potential because of disability or chronic illness-that are not currently incorporated into CEA are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CEA, through the measurement of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), is constrained because of a "QALY trap." If, for example, saving the life of a person with paraplegia is equally valuable as saving the life of a person without paraplegia, then current QALY methods force us to conclude that curing paraplegia brings no benefit. Basing cost-effectiveness measurement on societal values rather than QALYs may allow us to better capture public rationing preferences, thereby escaping the QALY trap. CEA can accommodate a wider range of such societal values about fairness in its measurements by amending its methodology.
OBJECTIVE: Before cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can fulfill its promise as a tool to guide health care allocation decisions, the method of incorporating societal values into CEA may need to be improved. DESIGN: The study design was a declarative exposition of potential fallacies in the theoretical underpinnings of CEA. Two values held by many people-preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients and preferences to avoid discrimination against people who have limited treatment potential because of disability or chronic illness-that are not currently incorporated into CEA are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CEA, through the measurement of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), is constrained because of a "QALY trap." If, for example, saving the life of a person with paraplegia is equally valuable as saving the life of a person without paraplegia, then current QALY methods force us to conclude that curing paraplegia brings no benefit. Basing cost-effectiveness measurement on societal values rather than QALYs may allow us to better capture public rationing preferences, thereby escaping the QALY trap. CEA can accommodate a wider range of such societal values about fairness in its measurements by amending its methodology.
Authors: Sarah E Rutstein; Joan T Price; Nora E Rosenberg; Stuart M Rennie; Andrea K Biddle; William C Miller Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2016-05-04
Authors: Maria Orlando Edelen; M Audrey Burnam; Katherine E Watkins; José J Escarce; Haiden Huskamp; Howard H Goldman; Gary Rachelefsky Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-08-25 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Travis C Porco; Bryan Lewis; Elliot Marseille; Jennifer Grinsdale; Jennifer M Flood; Sarah E Royce Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Valerie Hongoh; Pascal Michel; Pierre Gosselin; Karim Samoura; André Ravel; Céline Campagna; Hassane Djibrilla Cissé; Jean-Philippe Waaub Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390