Goel V, Deber R B, Detsky A S
Community Medicine Residency Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 1989 Feb 15;140(4):389-95.
The replacement of old radiologic contrast media with supposedly safer but more expensive media has created a dilemma for radiologists and hospital administrators. To quantitate the nature of this trade-off we performed a cost-utility analysis using optimistic assumptions that favoured the new media. A complete conversion to the new media would result in an incremental cost of at least $65,000 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For a selective strategy in which only high-risk patients would receive the new media the cost would be about $23,000 per QALY gained. However, the incremental cost for low-risk patients is over $220,000 per QALY gained. Conversion to the new contrast media, although not necessarily the most efficient use of scarce resources, has already occurred in Ontario, primarily because of press publicity, pressure from insurers and a political unwillingness of policymakers to decide the fate of identifiable victims. We found that funding of a new intervention associated with a high cost-utility ratio rather than interventions with lower ratios might save some identifiable victims at the expense of a larger number of unidentifiable ones.
用据称更安全但更昂贵的造影剂替代旧的放射造影剂给放射科医生和医院管理人员带来了两难困境。为了量化这种权衡的本质,我们进行了一项成本效用分析,采用了有利于新媒体的乐观假设。完全转换为新媒体将导致至少65,000美元的增量成本,以获得1个质量调整生命年(QALY)。对于仅高风险患者接受新媒体的选择性策略,每获得1个QALY的成本约为23,000美元。然而,低风险患者每获得1个QALY的增量成本超过220,000美元。向新造影剂的转换虽然不一定是对稀缺资源的最有效利用,但在安大略省已经发生,主要是因为媒体宣传、保险公司的压力以及政策制定者在政治上不愿决定可识别受害者的命运。我们发现,为高成本效用比的新干预措施提供资金,而不是为较低成本效用比的干预措施提供资金,可能会拯救一些可识别的受害者,但以更多不可识别的受害者为代价。