Should additional value elements be included in cost-effectiveness analysis in pharmacoeconomic evaluation: a novel commentary.

In recent years, international academics recognized that quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) may not always fully capture the benefits produced by an intervention, and considered incorporating additional elements of value into cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Examples of these elements are adherence-improving factors, insurance value, value of hope, and real option value, which form the "value flower". In order to explore whether it is scientific and reasonable to incorporate additional elements into CEA, this paper focuses on what pharmacoeconomic evaluation should do and what it can do. By elaborating the connotation of value, the connotation of decision, and tracing the origin of pharmacoeconomic evaluation, we believe that it is unscientific and unreasonable to incorporate additional elements of value into CEA, which has exceeded the essential connotation and capability of pharmacoeconomic evaluation. The analysis results belong to the theoretical level, empirical test is needed to verify the correctness and scientificity of this conclusion in the future.