Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 1–4 | Cite as

The New Myth

The Social Value of the QALY
  • Werner BrouwerEmail author
  • Job van Exel
  • Rachel Baker
  • Cam Donaldson
Editorial

Throughout history there have always been people who are susceptible to myths and have tried to find the unfindable, whether it be the Holy Grail providing eternal life for its finder, the alchemic formula turning lead into gold, Bigfoot or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. These myths come in different forms; some are clearly placed in a religious or metaphysical context (e.g. the Holy Grail), while others are marketed with an earthly and scientific aura (e.g. the hairs of Bigfoot).

At present, a new myth is seeking its way into the world. It has sought a particularly receptive bunch of people to nestle in, called health economists. We will call them ‘Believers’. The Believers form a relatively friendly tribe, although some theoretical quarrels between tribe members have been reported. Their sole goal in life is to help societies in their struggle with the optimal allocation of resources in the healthcare sector.1To that end, the Believers have designed a friendly...

References

  1. 1.
    Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Sec Sci Med 2006; 62: 2091–2100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    6th iHEA World Congress; 2007 Jul 8–11; CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boadway R, Bruce N. Welfare economics. Oxford: Basil Backwell, 1984Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gravelle H, Brouwer WBF, Niessen LW, et al. Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules. Health Econ 2007; 16 (3): 307–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (3): 332–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004 Oct 23; 329 (7472): 972–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dranove D. What’s your life worth? New York: FT Prentice Hall, 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams A. What could be nicer than NICE? OHE Annual Lecture 2004. London: Office of Health Economics, 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the fair innings argument. Health Econ 1997; 6 (2): 117–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WBF, et al. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (17): 1097–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammond PJ. Interpersonal comparisons of utility: why and how they are and should be made. In: Elster J, Roemer JE, editors. Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press, 1991Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith R, Richardson J. Can we estimate the ‘social’ value of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005; 74 (1): 77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams A, Cookson R. Equity in health. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Amstere, 2000Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Value of a Quality Adjusted Life Year [online]. Available from URL: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq [Accessed 2007 Dec 06]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Werner Brouwer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Job van Exel
    • 1
  • Rachel Baker
    • 2
  • Cam Donaldson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy & Management and Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University Rotterdam/Erasmus MCRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations