Berger Marc L, Teutsch Steven
Outcomes Research and Management, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania 198486, USA.
Med Care. 2005 Jul;43(7 Suppl):49-53.
This article proposes ways to improve the credibility and use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in healthcare decision-making. We argue that the major issue is not the credibility of CEA as a methodology; although there are methodologic challenges, they can be addressed. Two issues, however, will require effort on the part of stakeholders to achieve consensus. First, agreement must be reached regarding the standards of evidence required to support healthcare policy decisions. Second, and of greater importance, the process of healthcare resource allocation decision-making must be viewed as credible and legitimate. We believe that the legitimacy of policy decisions regarding healthcare resource allocation and the acceptance of CEA as a decision tool informing the decision process will require both broad-based stakeholder engagement and transparency throughout the process. For this to occur, stakeholder groups must come to consensus on how to address competing policy goals. Specifically, how should we balance the desires for equity, universal access to healthcare services and technology, and the right of individuals to secure the specific healthcare resources they want?
本文提出了提高成本效益分析(CEA)在医疗决策中的可信度和应用的方法。我们认为,主要问题不在于CEA作为一种方法的可信度;尽管存在方法上的挑战,但这些挑战是可以解决的。然而,有两个问题需要利益相关者努力达成共识。首先,必须就支持医疗政策决策所需的证据标准达成一致。其次,更重要的是,医疗资源分配决策过程必须被视为可信和合法的。我们认为,关于医疗资源分配的政策决策的合法性以及将CEA作为一种为决策过程提供信息的决策工具的接受,将需要广泛的利益相关者参与以及整个过程的透明度。要实现这一点,利益相关者群体必须就如何解决相互竞争的政策目标达成共识。具体而言,我们应该如何平衡公平、普遍获得医疗服务和技术的愿望,以及个人获得他们想要的特定医疗资源的权利?