Breyer Friedrich
Universität Konstanz und DIW Berlin.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010;104(3):209-14. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.004.
IQWiG's General Methods catalogue has raised a controversial debate among experts, and one of the major issues is the catalogue's authors' decision to exclusively use indication-specific output measures for benefit assessments. In contrast, numerous critics of this approach demand that benefit be measured using a uniform scale which is valid and interpretable for all indications, such as the "quality-adjusted life-year" (QALY). The present article will take a critical look at the arguments put forward by IQWiG and point out the disadvantages of purely indication-specific benefit assessments. We will then explore the legal possibilities of benefit assessments independent of the type of disease, and make some suggestions for the future approach to healthcare evaluation in Germany.
德国卫生经济学与健康技术评估研究所（IQWiG）的通用方法目录在专家中引发了一场有争议的辩论，其中一个主要问题是该目录的作者决定在效益评估中仅使用特定适应症的产出指标。相比之下，许多批评这种方法的人要求使用一种统一的量表来衡量效益，这种量表对所有适应症都是有效且可解释的，比如“质量调整生命年”（QALY）。本文将批判性地审视IQWiG提出的论点，并指出纯粹基于特定适应症的效益评估的缺点。然后，我们将探讨独立于疾病类型进行效益评估的法律可能性，并对德国未来的医疗保健评估方法提出一些建议。
