当前关于使用每质量质量成本进行成本效益分析的争议——二十年还不够吗?

B. Borissov
{"title":"当前关于使用每质量质量成本进行成本效益分析的争议——二十年还不够吗?","authors":"B. Borissov","doi":"10.15761/brcp.1000191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has murky origins and is empirical by nature. The fundamental issue is that QALY is not aimed at valuing health improvements but rather valuing health states. In the present era of breakthrough innovations and personalized medicine, the cost per QALY approach is outdated and far too imprecise. Cost per QALY remains a golden standard for some health technology assessment agencies to determine the value for money of innovations. The method is associated with well-acknowledged shortcomings. Criticism to cost per QALY is steadily growing and echoed by experts and international organizations. Cost-effectiveness analyses are expected to be expressed as costs per relevant clinical outcome and integrate fairly all relevant attributes. Cost per QALY assessment for health decision-making played its role in the last decades but should be abandoned in light of the current knowledge and nature of new medical technologies.","PeriodicalId":92336,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical research and clinical practice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current controversies of using cost per QALY for cost- effectiveness analysis-Isn’t two decades enough?\",\"authors\":\"B. Borissov\",\"doi\":\"10.15761/brcp.1000191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has murky origins and is empirical by nature. The fundamental issue is that QALY is not aimed at valuing health improvements but rather valuing health states. In the present era of breakthrough innovations and personalized medicine, the cost per QALY approach is outdated and far too imprecise. Cost per QALY remains a golden standard for some health technology assessment agencies to determine the value for money of innovations. The method is associated with well-acknowledged shortcomings. Criticism to cost per QALY is steadily growing and echoed by experts and international organizations. Cost-effectiveness analyses are expected to be expressed as costs per relevant clinical outcome and integrate fairly all relevant attributes. Cost per QALY assessment for health decision-making played its role in the last decades but should be abandoned in light of the current knowledge and nature of new medical technologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomedical research and clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomedical research and clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15761/brcp.1000191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical research and clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/brcp.1000191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

每个质量调整生命年的成本(QALY)来源模糊,本质上是经验性的。最根本的问题是,质量aly的目的不是评估健康状况的改善,而是评估健康状况。在当今这个突破性创新和个性化医疗的时代,按质量计算成本的方法已经过时,而且过于不精确。对于一些卫生技术评估机构来说,每个质量质量的成本仍然是确定创新的资金价值的黄金标准。这种方法有众所周知的缺点。对每个QALY成本的批评正在稳步增长,并得到专家和国际组织的响应。成本-效果分析应表示为每个相关临床结果的成本,并公平地整合所有相关属性。在过去的几十年里,卫生决策的每质量aly成本评估发挥了作用,但鉴于目前的知识和新医疗技术的性质,应该放弃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Current controversies of using cost per QALY for cost- effectiveness analysis-Isn’t two decades enough?
Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has murky origins and is empirical by nature. The fundamental issue is that QALY is not aimed at valuing health improvements but rather valuing health states. In the present era of breakthrough innovations and personalized medicine, the cost per QALY approach is outdated and far too imprecise. Cost per QALY remains a golden standard for some health technology assessment agencies to determine the value for money of innovations. The method is associated with well-acknowledged shortcomings. Criticism to cost per QALY is steadily growing and echoed by experts and international organizations. Cost-effectiveness analyses are expected to be expressed as costs per relevant clinical outcome and integrate fairly all relevant attributes. Cost per QALY assessment for health decision-making played its role in the last decades but should be abandoned in light of the current knowledge and nature of new medical technologies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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