Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:57:51.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the Coming Debate Over the QALY and Disability Will be Different

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Steven D. Pearson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Independent Articles: Commentary
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 2: Human Subject Protection , Summer 2019 , pp. 304 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Persad, G., “Considering Quality of Life while Repudiating Disability Injustice: A Pathways Approach to Setting Priorities,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 2 (2019): 294-303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, P. J. and Greenberg, D., “Is the United States Ready For QALYs?” Health Affairs 28, no. 5 (2009): 1366–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., and Basu, A., et al., “Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine,” JAMA 316, no. 10 (2016): 1093-1103; L. P. Garrison, P. J. Neumann, and R. J. Willke et al., “A Health Economics Approach to US Value Assessment Frameworks-Summary and Recommendations of the ISPOR Special Task Force Report [7]” Value Health 21, no. 2 (2018): 161-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckers-Droog, V.T., van Exel, N. J. A., and Brouwer, W. B. F, “Looking Back and Moving Forward: On the Application of Proportional Shortfall in Healthcare Priority Setting in the Netherlands,” Health Policy 122, no. 6 (2018): 621-629; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), “Appraising Life-Extending, End of Life Treatments,” July 2009, available at <https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gidtag387/documents/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2> (last visited April 5, 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopalan, A., “CVS Announcement of Cost-Effective Benchmarks Puts ICER in the Spotlight,” STAT, August 22, 2018, available at <https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/22/cvs-cost-effectiveness-benchmarks-puts-icer/> (last visited April 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Dunn, A., “Patient Groups Attack CVS use of ICER Metrics, Urge Rethink,” BioPharmaDive, September 14, 2018, available at <https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/patient-groups-attack-cvs-use-of-icer-metrics-urge-rethink/532383/> (last visited April 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), “The QALY: Rewarding the Care That Most Improves Patients' Lives,” December 2018, available at <https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/QALY_evLYG_FINAL.pdf> (last visited April 5, 2019).+(last+visited+April+5,+2019).>Google Scholar
McCallister, E., “Arbiter of Value: How ICER is Becoming the U.S.'s de factor HTA Agency,” March 23, 2018, available at <https://www.biocentury.com/biocentury/strategy/2018-03-23/how-icer-becoming-us%E2%80%99s-de-facto-hta-agency> (last visited April 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Singleton, M. M., “Eugenics, Euthanasia, Infanticide, and the Lord's Work,” February 4, 2019, available at <https://aapsonline.org/eugenics-euthanasia-infanticide-and-the-lords-work/> (last visited April 5, 2019).Google Scholar