Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

QALYs: the best option so far

Christopher A.K.Y. Chong
CMAJ May 27, 2003 168 (11) 1394-1396;
Christopher A.K.Y. Chong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

I would like to challenge Maurice McGregor's argument in a recent commentary1 that because the quality- adjusted life-year (QALY) has “severe limitations,” it is not useful for cost-utility analyses.

To support his argument that the QALY is not meaningful, McGregor quotes a seminal work emphasizing the difficulty of using a single measurement to evaluate different health outcomes.2 However, this same text recommends the continued use of the QALY while researchers develop potentially better tools.2

McGregor also argues that the QALY is not valid because it “frequently violates societal concerns for fairness in the allocation of health care resources.” Such ethical concerns have been expressed before, but alternatives to circumvent them are still relatively nascent, and “the conventional QALY remains the dominant approach.”2

McGregor then contends that the QALY is not reliable because utility estimates vary with the method used. However, variability can occur in any research. Consider how frequently clinical studies yield conflicting results. A more pertinent question is whether this variability is truly fatal to interpreting cost-effectiveness analyses.

McGregor next argues that the QALY is not relevant because there is “no unanimity as to whose viewpoint should be used when making societal policy decisions.” This does not make the QALY irrelevant — it merely means that research is needed to clarify the issue.

McGregor's final argument is more a general cautionary statement: “When the studies with which the cost–utility analysis in question can be compared are not identified, the cost–utility analysis should clearly not be used in health policy decisions.” However, the same can be said in any field: comparators should always be identified. Furthermore, comparing one cost-effectiveness ratio with another is no different from using league tables based on number-needed-to-treat to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of interventions.3

Without doubt, the QALY is an imperfect outcome measure. Nonetheless, despite acknowledging its weaknesses, the 1996 Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine endorsed its use.4 Reporting “outcomes in natural units,” as McGregor suggests, detracts from the goal of developing an ideal measure incorporating both quantity and quality of life.

Christopher A.K.Y. Chong 4th-Year Medical Student Faculty of Medicine University of Toronto Toronto, Ont.

References

  1. 1.↵
    McGregor M. Cost–utility analysis: use QALYs only with great caution [editorial]. CMAJ 2003; 168(4): 433-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
  3. 3.↵
    Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson S, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
  4. 4.↵
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1253-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 168, Issue 11
27 May 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
QALYs: the best option so far
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
QALYs: the best option so far
Christopher A.K.Y. Chong
CMAJ May 2003, 168 (11) 1394-1396;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
QALYs: the best option so far
Christopher A.K.Y. Chong
CMAJ May 2003, 168 (11) 1394-1396;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hospital-at-home programs in Canada: challenges and pitfalls
  • Author response to “Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider”
  • Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Dermatology
    • Drugs: adverse reactions
    • Reproductive health, infertility & pregnancy
    • Venous disease

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire