Suppr超能文献

权利、责任与英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所:对哈里斯的回应

Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris.

作者信息

Claxton Karl, Culyer Anthony J

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):462-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018903.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):462-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018903.
2
A NICE fallacy.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):465-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018556.
3
NICE rejoinder.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Aug;33(8):467. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.020628.
4
Is NICE ageist? Highlights from this issue.
J Med Ethics. 2012 May;38(5):257. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100711.
5
Health economics: Life in the balance.
Nature. 2009 Sep 17;461(7262):336-9. doi: 10.1038/461336a.
6
Not a NICE fallacy: a reply to Dr Quigley.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Aug;34(8):598-601. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.023028.
7
The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing.
Br Med Bull. 2007;81-82:51-64. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldm007. Epub 2007 Apr 4.
8
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal and ageism.
J Med Ethics. 2012 May;38(5):258-62. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100129. Epub 2012 Jan 2.
10
Controlling Healthcare Costs: Just Cost Effectiveness or "Just" Cost Effectiveness?
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018 Apr;27(2):271-283. doi: 10.1017/S0963180117000603.

引用本文的文献

2
The ethics of aggregation in cost-effectiveness analysis or, "on books, bookshelves, and budget impact".
Front Health Serv. 2022 Oct 13;2:889423. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2022.889423. eCollection 2022.
3
Willingness to pay for new medicines: a step towards narrowing the gap between NICE and IQWiG.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Apr 22;20(1):343. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5050-9.
4
Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(1):107-134. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0005.
5
The importance of being NICE.
J R Soc Med. 2015 Oct;108(10):385-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076815598877. Epub 2015 Oct 2.

本文引用的文献

1
Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jan;12(1):56-8. doi: 10.1258/135581907779497567.
2
Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE's decisions.
J Med Ethics. 2006 Jul;32(7):373-7; discussion 378-80. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.016204.
3
It's not NICE to discriminate.
J Med Ethics. 2005 Jul;31(7):373-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012906.
4
Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation.
Law Med Health Care. 1986 Sep;14(3-4):172-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1986.tb00974.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验