Is the Aim of the Health Care System to Maximise QALYs? An Investigation of ‘What Else Matters’ in the NHS

K. Shah, C. Praet, N. Devlin, J. Sussex, J. Appleby, D. Parkin
{"title":"Is the Aim of the Health Care System to Maximise QALYs? An Investigation of ‘What Else Matters’ in the NHS","authors":"K. Shah, C. Praet, N. Devlin, J. Sussex, J. Appleby, D. Parkin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2634413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The appraisal of health care technologies by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellent (NICE) focuses on cost effectiveness, usually measured in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. According to the findings presented in this Research Paper, however, cost effectiveness does not appear to be the dominant consideration in NHS decisions about resource allocation. In this paper, the authors examine what factors affect NHS decisions by analysing 51 Impact Assessments (IAs) completed by the UK Department of Health (DH) in 2008-9. Of the 51 IAs available, only eight used QALYs to evaluate benefits, including four of those associated with the largest monetised benefits. Ninety-three other unique benefits were applied in making NHS decisions. Most could be grouped into the following categories - improvement in health outcomes (26 of the 51), improvements in health service cost and efficiency (19), improvements in quality (15), and enhancing the patient and carer experience (11). For 21 IAs, no monetary impact was estimated and the statement was made in the IA that benefits could not be monetised or quantified. Setting aside the issue of what cost and benefit perspective is 'appropriate', the authors point out that this research suggests that the perspectives of NICE and the DH are 'very different' with 'clear implications' for efficiency across the health care system. A revised version of this paper has been published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy and can be downloaded from - http://hsr.sagepub.com/content/17/3/157.long Please cite as - Shah, K., Praet, C., Devlin, N., Sussex, J., Appleby, J. and Parkin, D., 2012. Is the aim of the English health care system to maximize QALYs? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 17(3), pp.157-163.","PeriodicalId":243720,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Microeconometric Studies of Health Markets (Topic)","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Microeconometric Studies of Health Markets (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2634413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The appraisal of health care technologies by the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellent (NICE) focuses on cost effectiveness, usually measured in terms of incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. According to the findings presented in this Research Paper, however, cost effectiveness does not appear to be the dominant consideration in NHS decisions about resource allocation. In this paper, the authors examine what factors affect NHS decisions by analysing 51 Impact Assessments (IAs) completed by the UK Department of Health (DH) in 2008-9. Of the 51 IAs available, only eight used QALYs to evaluate benefits, including four of those associated with the largest monetised benefits. Ninety-three other unique benefits were applied in making NHS decisions. Most could be grouped into the following categories - improvement in health outcomes (26 of the 51), improvements in health service cost and efficiency (19), improvements in quality (15), and enhancing the patient and carer experience (11). For 21 IAs, no monetary impact was estimated and the statement was made in the IA that benefits could not be monetised or quantified. Setting aside the issue of what cost and benefit perspective is 'appropriate', the authors point out that this research suggests that the perspectives of NICE and the DH are 'very different' with 'clear implications' for efficiency across the health care system. A revised version of this paper has been published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy and can be downloaded from - http://hsr.sagepub.com/content/17/3/157.long Please cite as - Shah, K., Praet, C., Devlin, N., Sussex, J., Appleby, J. and Parkin, D., 2012. Is the aim of the English health care system to maximize QALYs? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 17(3), pp.157-163.
医疗保健系统的目标是最大限度地提高质量年吗?对国民保健服务中“其他重要事项”的调查
英国国家健康与临床卓越研究所(NICE)对医疗保健技术的评估侧重于成本效益,通常以获得的每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本来衡量。然而,根据本研究报告的发现,成本效益似乎并不是NHS资源分配决策的主要考虑因素。在本文中,作者通过分析英国卫生部(DH)在2008- 2009年完成的51项影响评估(IAs),研究了影响NHS决策的因素。在51个可用的评估机构中,只有8个使用质量评估年来评估效益,其中4个与最大的货币化效益有关。在作出国民保健制度的决定时,还应用了其他93项独特的福利。大多数可归为以下类别-改善健康结果(51项中的26项),改善卫生服务成本和效率(19项),改善质量(15项),以及改善患者和护理人员体验(11项)。就21项国际投资准则而言,没有估计对货币的影响,而在国际投资准则中作出声明,利益无法货币化或量化。撇开什么成本和收益的观点是“合适的”这个问题不谈,作者指出,这项研究表明,NICE和DH的观点“非常不同”,对整个医疗保健系统的效率有“明显的影响”。本文的修订版已发表在《卫生服务研究与政策杂志》上,可从- http://hsr.sagepub.com/content/17/3/157.long下载,请注明为- Shah, K., Praet, C., Devlin, N., Sussex, J., Appleby, J.和Parkin, D., 2012。英国卫生保健系统的目标是最大限度地提高质量寿命吗?卫生服务研究与政策,17(3),pp.157-163。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信