Johannesson M
Centre for Health Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.
Health Econ. 1993 Dec;2(4):357-9; discussion 363-5. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020408.
Morrison & Gyldmark (MG) in a recent issue of health economics reviewed the use of the contingent valuation (CV) method of measuring willingness to pay in the health area. Although it is useful to examine the appropriate role of the CV method in the health care field, the appraisal by MG has a number of limitations which are pointed out in this paper. These relate to some inaccuracies in the review of the literature, the limited nature of the criteria proposed by MG to evaluate CV studies, and finally I argue that the comparison between CV, QALYs, and HYEs is premature and confuses rather than clarifies the debate.
莫里森和吉尔马克(MG)在最近一期的《卫生经济学》中回顾了在卫生领域使用条件价值评估(CV)方法来衡量支付意愿的情况。虽然研究CV方法在医疗保健领域的适当作用是有用的,但MG的评估存在一些局限性,本文将指出这些局限性。这些局限性涉及文献综述中的一些不准确之处、MG提出的评估CV研究的标准的有限性,最后我认为CV、质量调整生命年(QALYs)和健康年当量(HYEs)之间的比较为时过早,它混淆而非澄清了相关辩论。