National Center on Birth Defects & Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Raod NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Apr;8(2):165-78. doi: 10.1586/14737167.8.2.165.
Cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly in the USA, commonly use a figure of $50,000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained as a threshold for assessing the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. The history of this practice is ill defined, although it has been linked to the end-stage renal disease kidney dialysis cost-effectiveness literature from the 1980s. The use of $50,000 as a benchmark for assessing the cost-effectiveness of an intervention first emerged in 1992 and became widely used after 1996. The appeal of the $50,000 figure appears to lie in the convenience of a round number rather than in the value of renal dialysis. Rather than arbitrary thresholds, estimates of willingness to pay and the opportunity cost of healthcare resources are needed.
成本效益分析,特别是在美国,通常使用每获得一个生命年或质量调整生命年的 50000 美元作为评估干预措施成本效益的阈值。这种做法的历史定义不明确,尽管它与 20 世纪 80 年代末期的终末期肾病肾脏透析成本效益文献有关。1992 年首次使用 50000 美元作为评估干预措施成本效益的基准,并在 1996 年之后广泛使用。50000 美元数字的吸引力似乎在于它是一个方便的整数,而不是肾脏透析的价值。而不是任意的阈值,需要估计支付意愿和医疗资源的机会成本。