Claxton Karl, Culyer Anthony J
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):462-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018903.
Harris' reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does not and cannot evaluate all possible uses of healthcare resources at any one time and generally cannot know which National Health Service (NHS) activities would be displaced or which groups of patients would have to forgo health benefits: the inference is that no estimate is or can be made by NICE of the benefits to be forgone. This is a non-sequitur. Second, he asserts that it is a flaw at the heart of the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an outcome measure that comparisons between people need to be made. Such comparisons do indeed have to be made, but this is not a consequence of the choice of any particular outcome measure, be it the QALY or anything else.
哈里斯针对我们对国家临床优化研究所(NICE)当前成本效益程序的辩护所做出的回应,还存在另外两个错误。首先,他从NICE不会也无法在任何时候评估医疗资源的所有可能用途,并且通常不知道哪些国民医疗服务体系(NHS)活动会被取代,或者哪些患者群体将不得不放弃健康益处这一事实中,错误地得出了一个结论:即NICE没有也无法对所放弃的益处进行估计。这是一个不合逻辑的推论。其次,他断言,将质量调整生命年(QALYs)用作结果指标的核心存在一个缺陷,即需要对不同的人进行比较。这样的比较确实必须进行,但这并非是选择任何特定结果指标(无论是QALY还是其他任何指标)所导致的结果。