Abstract
AbstractDespite clinical evidence of drug superiority, therapeutic modalities, like combination immunotherapy, are mostly considered cost-ineffective due to their high costs per life year(s) gained. This paper, taking an ethical stand, reevaluates the standard cost-effectiveness analysis with that of the more recent justice-enhanced methods and concludes by pointing out the shortcomings of the current methodologies.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Neumann P, Russell LB, Siegel JE, et al. Using cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine: experiences since the original panel. In: Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG, editors. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017. pp. 1–37.
2. Cookson R, Mirelman AJ, Griffin S, Asaria M, Dawkins B, Norheim OF, Verguet S, Culyer J. Value health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2017;20(2):206–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027. A. Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.
3. Cookson R, et al. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(Pt 2):231–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133109004903.
4. Norheim OF, Ottersen T, Tolla MT, Memirie ST, Johansson KA. Incorporating distributional concerns into practical tools for priority-setting. In: Norheim OF, Emanuel EJ, Millum J, editors. Global Health Priority-Setting: beyond cost-effectiveness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. pp. 181–204.
5. Reckers-Droog VT, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Looking back and moving forward: on the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2018;122(6):621–9.
Cited by
1 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