Abstract
Recent research into end of life and palliative care has focused on the development of a replacement for the quality adjusted life year (QALY) as an outcome measure. Reasons given range from the lack of anticipated survival benefit from treatment to the inappropriateness of death as an anchor for valuing health states, or the increased value of time to the individual at the end of life. The Palliative Care Yardstick, has been proposed as an alternative. In this paper, I argue that the QALY should not be abandoned as an outcome measure in end of life and palliative care populations and suggest possible methods for generating empirical data to support or refute this. I show why the arguments made for replacement of the QALY are not supported by current evidence and how in some cases the abandonment of the QALY framework would lead to an unjustifiable inequitable distribution of resources.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 521-527 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Health Economics |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2012 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- End of life care
- Ethics
- Palliative care
- Quality of life
- Resource allocation
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver