Sendi Pedram, Al Maiwenn J, Gafni Amiram, Birch Stephen
Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology, Kantonspital Basel, Hebelstrasse 10, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Soc Sci Med. 2004 May;58(10):1853-5. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.001.
Bridges and Terris (Soc. Sci. Med. (2004)) critique our paper on the alternative decision rule of economic evaluation in the presence of uncertainty and constrained resources within the context of a portfolio of health care programs (Sendi et al. Soc. Sci. Med. 57 (2003) 2207). They argue that by not adopting a formal portfolio theory approach we overlook the optimal solution. We show that these arguments stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the alternative decision rule of economic evaluation. In particular, the portfolio theory approach advocated by Bridges and Terris is based on the same theoretical assumptions that the alternative decision rule set out to relax. Moreover, Bridges and Terris acknowledge that the proposed portfolio theory approach may not identify the optimal solution to resource allocation problems. Hence, it provides neither theoretical nor practical improvements to the proposed alternative decision rule.
布里奇斯和特里里斯（《社会科学与医学》（2004年））批评了我们关于在医疗保健项目组合背景下存在不确定性和资源受限情况下经济评估的替代决策规则的论文（森迪等人，《社会科学与医学》57（2003年）2207）。他们认为，由于没有采用正式的投资组合理论方法，我们忽略了最优解。我们表明，这些论点源于对经济评估替代决策规则的根本误解。特别是，布里奇斯和特里里斯所倡导的投资组合理论方法基于与替代决策规则旨在放松的相同理论假设。此外，布里奇斯和特里里斯承认，所提出的投资组合理论方法可能无法确定资源分配问题的最优解。因此，它既没有为所提出的替代决策规则提供理论上的改进，也没有提供实际的改进。
