Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris.
Harris' reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does not and cannot evaluate all possible uses of healthcare resources at any one time and generally cannot know which National Health Service (NHS) activities would be displaced or which groups of patients would have to forgo health benefits: the inference is that no estimate is or can be made by NICE of the benefits to be forgone. This is a non-sequitur. Second, he asserts that it is a flaw at the heart of the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an outcome measure that comparisons between people need to be made. Such comparisons do indeed have to be made, but this is not a consequence of the choice of any particular outcome measure, be it the QALY or anything else.
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
Karl
K
Claxton
Anthony J
AJ
Culyer
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006077:Government Agencies / Q000941:ethics*; D017048:Health Care Costs / Q000941:ethics*; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics*; D011787:Quality of Health Care / Q000191:economics / Q000941:ethics*; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D006113:United Kingdom