Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013 Nov 18;2(1):45. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-45.
Despite most new cancer treatments having relatively high costs and low health benefits, they are often funded ahead of treatments for other illnesses. And yet, according to the article by Dan Greenberg and colleagues, most Israeli oncologists and family physicians think that new cancer treatments should not receive such a high priority and that cost-effectiveness data should be used to support funding decisions. In this commentary, I point out that the increasing pressure worldwide when prioritizing health technologies to widen the scope of the benefits that are recognized beyond just narrowly-defined health benefits would almost certainly include the special characteristics of cancer. Future research would be worthwhile into how the criteria for prioritizing technologies should be incorporated into prioritization frameworks in practice, including, in particular, how to resolve the inherent trade-offs.This is a commentary on http://www.ijhpr.org/content/2/2/44/
尽管大多数新的癌症治疗方法费用相对较高,健康效益却较低,但它们通常比治疗其他疾病的方法获得更多的资金支持。然而,根据 Dan Greenberg 及其同事的文章,大多数以色列肿瘤学家和家庭医生认为,新的癌症治疗方法不应给予如此高的优先级,而应使用成本效益数据来支持资金决策。在这篇评论中,我指出,在全球范围内,当优先考虑卫生技术以扩大公认的利益范围,使其超出狭义的健康效益时,将几乎肯定包括癌症的特殊特征。未来的研究将值得探讨如何将技术优先排序的标准纳入实践中的优先排序框架,包括特别是如何解决固有的权衡问题。这是对 http://www.ijhpr.org/content/2/2/44/的评论。