Comparative Effectiveness research in healthcare is used to
evaluate and compare the outcomes of two or more variables
(diseases, preventive care, etc.). In reading the research paper
it is apparent that a shared outcome is quality of life, also
known as quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Coming from the
perspective of working at a Payer but also being a patient, the
three choices were difficult for me, and I can’t choose one, so
point B & C are my choices. From my Payer perspective, I
understand the cost effectiveness vs QALY but from a patient
perspective (patient or loved one), I also see the benefits of
exceeding costs to gain that extra life expectancy.
The various points on the “curve” differ. Point A represents the
US healthcare system and unfortunately has downfalls such as
wasteful costs due to negligence in care (noted: this is not a
reference to US healthcare as I have experienced personally).
Point B represents the “prime” healthcare option where every
venue of care is exhausted no matter the cost vs QALY. Point C
looks at different variables with an example “hurdle” rate of
1/$100,000; meaning is the cost of treatment or
palliative/curative care is greater than $100,000 per 1 year of
life gained (Chandra et al., 2011).
Chandra, A., Jena, A. B., & Skinner, J. S. (2011, April).
THE
PRAGMATIST’S GUIDE TO COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
RESEARCH
. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved May 11, 2022, from
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16990/
w16990.pdf
