Should we abandon QALYs as a resource allocation tool?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 24, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 953-954

  Vijan, Sandeep ^a,b,c  

^a VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c Ann Arbor VA HSR and D   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BUDGET; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH STATUS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 33749338793     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624100-00003     Document Type: Note

References (4)

1. Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294: 2618-22
2. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13: 437-52
3. McGregor M, Caro JJ. QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10): 937-42
4. Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The impact of considering adaptation in health-state valuation. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61: 267-77