首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >Comments on Simoens S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009 6 2950–2966—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold
【2h】

Comments on Simoens S. Health Economic Assessment: A Methodological Primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009 6 2950–2966—New Zealand in Fact Has No Cost-Effectiveness Threshold

机译:关于 SimoensS.卫生经济评估:方法学入门的评论。诠释J.环境。 Res。 Public Health 200962950–2966 —实际上新西兰没有成本效益阈值

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The Journal recently incorrectly ascribed cost-effectiveness thresholds to New Zealand, alongside other countries. New Zealand has no such thresholds when deciding the funding of pharmaceuticals. As we fund pharmaceuticals within a fixed budget, and cost-effectiveness is only one of nine decision criteria used to inform decisions, thresholds cannot be inferred or calculated. Thresholds inadequately account for opportunity cost and affordability, and are incompatible with budgets and maximising health gains. In New Zealand, pharmaceutical investments can only be considered ‘cost-effective’ when prioritised against other proposals at the time, and threshold levels must inevitably vary with available funds and the other criteria.
机译:《华尔街日报》最近错误地将成本效益阈值归因于新西兰以及其他国家。新西兰在决定药品资助时没有这样的门槛。由于我们在固定预算内为药品提供资金,而成本效益只是用于为决策提供依据的九个决策标准之一,因此无法推断或计算阈值。阈值不足以说明机会成本和负担能力,并且与预算不符,无法最大限度地提高健康收益。在新西兰,制药投资只有在当时优先于其他提案时才能被认为是“具有成本效益的”,并且阈值水平必然会随着可用资金和其他标准而变化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号