Literature DB >> 8269048

QALY league tables: handle with care.

K Gerard1, G Mooney.   

Abstract

This paper examines some of the difficulties in using QALY league tables in priority setting. Such tables sometimes are seen as being 'the' way to prioritise in health care and in particular, at present, with respect to priority setting among purchasers in the UK NHS. However the paper highlights the fact that the base on which such tables is built is small--relatively few studies in the English language using CUA have been conducted anywhere. Further, four issues which require handling with care are set out: (i) the relevant measure of cost in QALY league tables has to be restricted to health service resource use; (ii) the relevant measure of benefit in QALY league tables is clearly restricted to QALYs, thereby the utility of health gains and indeed the maximisation of the utility of health gains; (iii) in incorporating the results of CUA studies into QALY league tables there is a need for greater clarification on what the margin constitutes; and (iv) those who might use CUA results in QALY league tables need to ascertain whether the original context of the study will allow the results to be transferred to the local context of the decision maker. The paper suggests that there is a need to be quite clear what goal QALY league tables serve. The authors argue that the only legitimate (and clearly important) goal of QALY league tables is the maximization of the utility of health gains within a health service budget.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8269048     DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730020108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  47 in total

Review 1.  Using cost effectiveness information.

Authors:  A Briggs; A Gray
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-22

Review 2.  Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare. Matching the art to the science.

Authors:  E McIntosh; C Donaldson; M Ryan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Household income losses associated with ischaemic heart disease for US employees.

Authors:  J Herrin; C B Cangialose; S J Boccuzzi; W S Weintraub; D J Ballard
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Health economic evaluation.

Authors:  A Shiell; C Donaldson; C Mitton; G Currie
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in australia (1991 to 1996).

Authors:  B George; A Harris; A Mitchell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  An introduction to economic evaluation.

Authors:  S Goodacre; C McCabe
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.740

7.  Limitations of the methods used for calculating quality-adjusted life-year values.

Authors:  Gérard Duru; Jean Paul Auray; Ariel Béresniak; Michel Lamure; Abby Paine; Nicolas Nicoloyannis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  The end of the affair--public health medicine 1974-2002.

Authors:  Peter Sim
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Beta interferon, NICE, and rationing.

Authors:  David Kernick
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: a patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.