质量评估与政策评估:一个新的视角

M. Adler
{"title":"质量评估与政策评估:一个新的视角","authors":"M. Adler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.655865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article presents a new, welfarist defense of the use of QALYs (quality adjusted life years) in policy evaluation. It challenges both the conventional wisdom among health economists that QALY-based analysis is dominated by traditional cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the sum of willingness-to-pay amounts) as well as the standard view of public health researchers that QALYs should function as the effectiveness metric in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Instead, the Article defends a nontraditional form of cost-benefit analysis, where QALYs are multipled by a conversion factor, for example $100,000 per QALY, and added to the monetized non-health effects of a policy. Part I of the Article surveys the current literature on QALYs. Part II shows that QALYs can be a more accurate measure of overall well-being than WTP amounts, under certain conditions, and argues that cognitive difficulties interfering with the measurement of WTP amounts can be circumvented by QALYs. Part III describes the limitations of QALYs. Part IV discusses the role that QALYs should play in welfarist policy analysis, given their strengths and limitations. In particular, it presents a pragmatic approach to determining the QALY-to-dollar conversion factor, and sheds new light on the controversy about pricing whole lives versus life-years.","PeriodicalId":73765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health care law & policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"QALYs and Policy Evaluation: A New Perspective\",\"authors\":\"M. Adler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.655865\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article presents a new, welfarist defense of the use of QALYs (quality adjusted life years) in policy evaluation. It challenges both the conventional wisdom among health economists that QALY-based analysis is dominated by traditional cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the sum of willingness-to-pay amounts) as well as the standard view of public health researchers that QALYs should function as the effectiveness metric in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Instead, the Article defends a nontraditional form of cost-benefit analysis, where QALYs are multipled by a conversion factor, for example $100,000 per QALY, and added to the monetized non-health effects of a policy. Part I of the Article surveys the current literature on QALYs. Part II shows that QALYs can be a more accurate measure of overall well-being than WTP amounts, under certain conditions, and argues that cognitive difficulties interfering with the measurement of WTP amounts can be circumvented by QALYs. Part III describes the limitations of QALYs. Part IV discusses the role that QALYs should play in welfarist policy analysis, given their strengths and limitations. In particular, it presents a pragmatic approach to determining the QALY-to-dollar conversion factor, and sheds new light on the controversy about pricing whole lives versus life-years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"43\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of health care law & policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.655865\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health care law & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.655865","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

摘要

本文提出了一个新的,福利主义的辩护使用QALYs(质量调整生命年)在政策评估。它既挑战了卫生经济学家的传统智慧,即基于质量的分析由传统的成本效益分析(即,支付意愿金额的总和)主导,也挑战了公共卫生研究人员的标准观点,即质量质量年应作为成本效益分析中的有效性度量标准。相反,这篇文章为一种非传统形式的成本效益分析进行了辩护,在这种分析中,质量效益年乘以一个转换因子,例如每个质量效益年10万美元,并将其添加到一项政策的货币化非健康影响中。文章的第一部分概述了目前关于质量分析的文献。第二部分表明,在某些条件下,QALYs可以比WTP数量更准确地衡量整体幸福感,并认为干扰WTP数量测量的认知困难可以通过QALYs规避。第三部分描述了qaly的局限性。第四部分讨论了质量指标在福利主义政策分析中应该发挥的作用,给出了它们的优势和局限性。特别是,它提出了一种实用的方法来确定质量与美元的换算系数,并为整个生命周期与生命周期定价的争议提供了新的思路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
QALYs and Policy Evaluation: A New Perspective
This Article presents a new, welfarist defense of the use of QALYs (quality adjusted life years) in policy evaluation. It challenges both the conventional wisdom among health economists that QALY-based analysis is dominated by traditional cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the sum of willingness-to-pay amounts) as well as the standard view of public health researchers that QALYs should function as the effectiveness metric in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Instead, the Article defends a nontraditional form of cost-benefit analysis, where QALYs are multipled by a conversion factor, for example $100,000 per QALY, and added to the monetized non-health effects of a policy. Part I of the Article surveys the current literature on QALYs. Part II shows that QALYs can be a more accurate measure of overall well-being than WTP amounts, under certain conditions, and argues that cognitive difficulties interfering with the measurement of WTP amounts can be circumvented by QALYs. Part III describes the limitations of QALYs. Part IV discusses the role that QALYs should play in welfarist policy analysis, given their strengths and limitations. In particular, it presents a pragmatic approach to determining the QALY-to-dollar conversion factor, and sheds new light on the controversy about pricing whole lives versus life-years.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信