Bryan Stirling, Roberts Tracy, Heginbotham Chris, McCallum Alison
Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham, UK.
Health Econ. 2002 Dec;11(8):679-93. doi: 10.1002/hec.695.
The appropriate criteria that should be used in setting priorities in a publicly funded health care system remain open to debate. From a health economics perspective, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are increasingly portrayed as a measure of societal value and the criterion of QALY maximisation is then advocated. This paper reports a study that investigated the extent to which some of the assumptions underlying the QALY maximisation approach, notably constant marginal societal value for increases in the size of health programmes, the level of risk, and the level of benefit are supported by members of the public. A general population interview-based survey was conducted. The survey design employed conjoint methods. In general, the public preference data from this study, in themselves, are not much at odds with the core proportionality assumptions concerning societal value in the QALY maximisation model assumptions. The data are, however, at odds with reports from various previous studies.
在公共资助的医疗保健系统中确定优先事项时应采用的适当标准仍有待讨论。从卫生经济学的角度来看,质量调整生命年(QALYs)越来越被视为衡量社会价值的指标,因此有人主张将QALY最大化作为标准。本文报告了一项研究,该研究调查了公众对QALY最大化方法所依据的一些假设的支持程度,这些假设尤其包括健康项目规模增加时边际社会价值恒定、风险水平和受益水平。开展了一项基于普通人群访谈的调查。调查设计采用了联合分析方法。总体而言,本研究中的公众偏好数据本身与QALY最大化模型假设中关于社会价值的核心比例假设并没有太大差异。然而,这些数据与之前各项研究的报告存在差异。