Is the QALY a Technical Solution to a Political Problem? Of Course Not!

Author:

Williams Alan

Abstract

Carr-Hill's critique of health economists' work on QALYs is based on a fundamental misconception about the role, nature, and purpose of policy analysis. Because he fails to distinguish analysis from decision-making, he is led to believe that, in pressing hard to make decision-criteria explicit and transparent, health economists are trying to usurp the decision-makers' role by insisting that the analysts' views replace the decision-makers' views. He believes that this is both naive and dangerous—and, if he were right, it certainly would be. But the truth is that the cause of democratic accountability is better served by relentless analysis designed to make explicit what might otherwise remain hidden, than by leaving the tough problems encountered in priority-setting to be sorted out in forums in which the decisive factors remain obscure.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 25 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3