Controversies around QALYs

Česká verzia

Authors: Vladimír Rogalewicz ¹; Miroslav Barták ²
Authors place of work: CzechHTA, Fakulta biomedicínského inženýrství ČVUT v Praze, Kladno ¹; Fakulta sociálně ekonomická UJ EP v Ústí nad Labem ²
Published in the journal: Vnitř Lék 2017; 63(4): 242-248
Category: Přehledné referáty

Summary

The paper summarizes the criticisms of the QALY concept utilization in health-economic evaluations that has been growing stronger in the last years. Despite of its limitations, the QALY concept has been routinely used in many countries incl. the Czech Republic. However, some states disapproved QALYs as an optimizing criterion at the level of their political decisions. The critical reflection concerns both the theoretical and the experimental issues. Based on a literary review, fundamental arguments against the concept are summarized, and a synthesis of material objections is presented. The critical arguments focus on the foundations of the QALY concept in the economic theory, some ethical principles, inconsistencies and technical imperfections of the quality-of-life measurement tools used in QALY calculations, the substitution rule, differences between various diagnoses, and disregarding some other important parameters. As a whole, the critics´ arguments can be judged as quite strong. The future will show whether the critical arguments summarized in this paper will lead to a development of alternative tools that have a potential of eliminating imperfections in QALYs, and consequently provide more complex data for the decision process.

Key words:
cost-effectiveness – health technology assessment – HTA – QALY – utility measure for medical interventions

Zdroje

1) Barták M. Ekonomika zdraví. Wolters Kluwer: Praha: 2010. ISBN 9788073577704.

2) Burger M. Farmakoekonomika jako kargokultická věda? Ekonomie ve zdravotnictví 2015; 1(1): 5–11.

3) Mlčoch T, Doležal T. Je QALY opravdu tak špatný koncept aneb Vadí nám QALY nebo objektivní ekonomické zhodnocení? Ekonomie ve zdravotnictví 2016; 2(1): 19–23.

4) Weinstein M. A QALY IS A QALY IS A QALY – OR IS IT. J Health Econ 1988; 7(3): 289–290.

5) Rawles J. Castigating QALYs. J Med Ethics 1989; 15(3): 143–147.

6) Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press: New York 1996. ISBN 978–0195108248.

7) Whitehead S, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010; 96: 5–21. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033>.

8) Goodman CS (ed). HTA101. Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. USA National Library of Medicine: Bethesda (MD) 2014. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/HTA_101_FINAL_02–02–15.pdf>.

9) Schöffski O, Schulenburg JM. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen, 4th ed. Springer: Berlin 2012. ISBN 978–3-642–21699–2

10) Gulacsi L, Rotar A, Niewada M et al. Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Eur J Health Econ 2014; 15(1): S13-S25. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198–014–0590–8>.

11) Zavadil M, Rogalewicz V, Kubátová I et al. Hodnocení zdravotnických technologií na úrovni nemocnice. Čas Lék Česk 2016; 155(5): 254–259.

12) International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.ispor.org>.

13) Winter Y, von Campenhausen S, Brozova H et al. Costs of Parkinson‘s disease in Eastern Europe: A Czech cohort study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2010; 16(1): 51–56. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2009.07.005>.

14) Kala P, Němec P, Želízko M et al. Revaskularizace myokardu. Perkutánní koronární intervence a aortokoronární bypass. Vnitř Lék 2012; 58(Suppl 1): 79–103.

15) Bartakova J, Potlukova E, Rogalewicz V et al. Screening for autoimmune thyroid disorders after spontaneous abortion is cost-saving and it improves the subsequent pregnancy rate. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 3:217. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471–2393–13–217>.

16) Petrikova A, Dolezal T, Klimes J et al. The economic burden of the ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic: comparison between 2005 and 2008. Rheumatol Int 2013; 33(7): 1813–1819. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00296–012–2542-x>.

17) Tichopad A, Roberts C, Gembula I et al. Clinical and Economic Burden of Community-Acquired Pneumonia among Adults in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Plos One 2013; 8(8): e71375. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071375>.

18) Burger M, Demlová R, Májek O et al. Protonová terapie v onkologii – výsledky české HTA studie. Medical Tribune 2014; 10(14): B7-B8.

19) Hradecká I, Říhová B, Horová R et al. Analýza nákladů na 1. linii léčby metastatického kolorektálního karcinomu při podání režimů s bevacizumabem – data z reálné klinické praxe v České republice. Klinická onkologie 2014; 27(4): 255–260.

20) Simrova J, Bartak M, Vojtisek R et al. The costs and reimbursements for lung cancer treatment among selected health care providers in the Czech Republic. E & M Ekonomie a Management 2014; 17(3): 74–85. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2014–3-007>.

21) Doležal T, Kruntorádová K. Klinické a ekonomické příanosy nových antidiabetik v České republice. Vnitř Lék 2015; 61(Suppl 3): 50–53.

22) Bulava A, Ošmera O, Šnorek M et al. Cost analysis of telemedicine monitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the Czech Republic. Cor et Vasa 2016; 58(3): e293-e302. Dostupné z DOI: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010865015000855>.

23) Pettitt DA, Raza S, Naughton B et al. The Limitations of QALY: A Literature Review. J Stem Cell Res Ther 2016; 6(4): 1000334. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157–7633.1000334>.

24) Value in Health 2009; 12(Suppl 1): S1-S39.

25) Echoutcome: European Guidelines for Conducting Cost-Effectiveness Assessments of Health Technologies. In: Brussels: The Echoutcome Project. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.echoutcome.eu/>. 2013.

26) Beresniak A, Medina-Lara A, Auray J et al. Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33(1): 61–69. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273–014–0216–0>.

27) Fuchs VR. Who shall live? health, economics, and social choice. 2nd ed. New Jersey: World Scientific 2011. ISBN 978–9814354882.

28) Popovič I. Vybrané ukazatele ekonomiky zdravotnictví v mezinárodním srovnání. In: Aktuální informace 2015; 7: 1–8. ÚZIS ČR: Praha 2015.

29) OECD Health Statistics 2015. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm>.

30) Clark JS, Dittrich LO, Stará D et al. The visit fees and its influence on overall health expenditures – The case of the Czech Republic. E & M Ekonomika a Management 2017; 20 (to appear).

31) Gavurová B, Vagašová T. Regional differences of standardized mortality rates for ischemic heart diseases in the Slovak Republic for the period 1996–2013 in the context of income inequality. Health Econ Rev 2016; 6(1): 21. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561–016–0099–1>.

32) Klarman HE, Francis JOS, Rosenthal GD. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Applied to the Treatment of Chronic Renal Disease. Medical Care 1968; 6: 48–54.

33) Weinstein M, Stason W. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 716–721.

34) Béresniak A. What is quality adjusted life years (QALY)? In: The Echoutcome FP7 EU project 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.echoutcome.eu>.

35) Holmes D. Report triggers quibbles over QALYs, a staple of health metrics. Nature Medicine 2013; 19(3): 248–248. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm0313–248>.

36) Johnson F. Editorial: Moving the QALY Forward or Just Stuck in Traffic? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl): S38-S39. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00521.x>.

37) Schlander M. Measures of efficiency in healthcare: QALMs about QALYs? Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2010; 104(3): 214–226.

38) Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Anal 2001; 9(1): 65–76.

39) McGuire A. What Are Economists Measuring When They Attempt to Measure the QALY? In: Will QALY survive? ISPOR Connections 2007; 13(5). Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.ispor.org/News/articles/Oct07/WTQ.asp>.

40) Gyrd-Hansen D. Looking for Willingness to Pay (WTP) Threshold for a QALY - Does it Make Sense? A Critical View. ISPOR Connections 2007; 13(4). Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.ispor.org/news/articles/July07/WTP-CW.asp>.

41) Nord E, Daniels N, Kamlet M. QALYs: Some Challenges. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 1): S10-S15. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00516.x>.

42) Schulenburg JM. Gvd: The QALY controversy in Germany. In. Special conference – health outcomes in Europe: the QALY controversy. Brussels: The Echoutcome FP7 EU project 2013. Dostupné z WWW: http://www.echoutcome.eu.

43) den Exter A. Where law and economics meet each other: cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Med Pravo [Medical Law] 2015; 15(1): 11–25.

44) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In: Public law 111–148-MAR 23, 2010. 111th edn; 2010. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf>.

45) Abraham I, Harrington A, Bootman JL. The QALY controversy in United States. In: Special conference – health outcomes in Europe: the QALY controversy. Brussels: The Echoutcome FP7 EU project 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.echoutcome.eu>.

46) Weinstein M, Kaiser HJ. Cost-per-QALY in the US and Britain: Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t. 18th Annual Lecture. London: Office of Health Economics 2011. ISBN 978–1-899040–59–9. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.ohe.org/publications/cost-qaly-us-and-britain-damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don‘t>.

47) Craig B, Reeve B, Cella D et al. Demographic Differences in Health Preferences in the United States. Med Care 2014; 52(4): 307–313. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000066>.

48) Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D et al. Retaining, and Enhancing, the QALY. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 1): S18-S26. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00518.x>

49) Beresniak A, Russell A, Haraoui B et al. Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2007; 34(11): 2193–2200.

50) Kiadaliri A, Eliasson B, Gerdtham U. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015; 13:145. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955–015–0344-z>.

51) Marra C, Rashidi A, Guh D et al. Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients? Qual Life Res 2005; 14(5): 1333–1344.

52) Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health 2011; 14(4): 531–538. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002>.

53) Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP et al. Not all „quality-adjusted life years“ are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(6):616–624.

54) Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ 2009; 10(1):15–23. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198–008–0097–2>.

55) Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004; 13(9): 873–884.

56) Ariza-Ariza R, Hernandez-Cruz B, Carmona L et al. Assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison between time trade-off and the EuroQol. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55(5): 751–756.

57) Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P et al. The Impact of Differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D Utility Scores on the Acceptability of Cost–Utility Ratios: Results across Five Trial-Based Cost–Utility Studies. Value in Health 2010; 13(2): 222–229. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00669.x>.

58) McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25(2): 93–106.

59) EuroQoL Research Foundation. Dostupné z WWW: .

60) Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S et al. Development of the WHOQOL-Old module. Quality of Life Research 2005; 14(10): 2197–2214.

61) Gurková E. Hodnocení kvality života pro klinickou praxi a ošetřovatelský výzkum. Grada: Praha 2011. ISBN 978–80–247–3625–9

62) Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25(9): 713–726.

63) Oppe M, de Charro F. Population norms and their uses. In: Szende A, Williams A (eds). Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. EuroQoL Group 2004: 16–22. ISBN 963 94 56 47 0. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Books/Measuring_Self-Reported_Population_Health_-_An_International_Perspective_based_on_EQ-5D.pdf>

64) Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, Kind P et al. Toward a Consensus on the QALY. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl 1): S31-S35. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00522.x>.

65) Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: The Basics. Value Health 2009; 12: S5-S9. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00515.x>.

66) Stamuli E. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? Br Med Bull 2011; 97: 197–210. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldr001>.

67) Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health. Econ J 2008; 118(525): 215–234. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–0297.2007.02110.x>.

68) Determinants of health economic decisions in actual practice: the role of behavioral economics. Summary of the presentation given by Professor Daniel Kahneman at the ISPOR 10th Annual International Meeting First Plenary Session, May 16, 2005, Washington, DC, USA. Value Health 2006; 9(2): 65–67.

69) Smith MD, Drummond M, Brixner D. Moving the QALY Forward: Rationale for Change. Value in Health 2009; 12(Suppl 1): S1-S4. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00514.x>.

70) Neumann PJ, Greenberg D. Is the United States ready for QALYs? Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28(5): 1366–1371. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.1366>.

71) Wailoo A, Davis S, Tosh J. The incorporation of health benefits in cost utility analysis using the EQ-5D. Report by the decision support unit. School of Health and Related Research. University of Sheffield 2010. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/PDFs%20of%20reports/DSU%20EQ5D%20final%20report%20-%20submitted.pdf>.

72) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) London 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9>.

73) Health-related quality of life and utility measures. Guideline. In: EUnetHTA – European network for Health Technology Assessment 2013. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Health-related%20quality%20of%20life.pdf>.

74) Methods for health economic evaluations – A guideline based on current practices in Europe. In: EUnetHTA – European Network for Health Technology Assessment 2015. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/news-attachments/2015–04–29-eco-gl_final_version.pdf>.

75) Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C et al. From Translation to Version Management: A History and Review of Methods for the Cultural Adaptation of the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire. Value Health 2014; 17(1): 70–76. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006>.

76) Cleemput I. Can we explain inter-country differences in levels of health? In: Szende A, Williams A (eds). Measuring Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. EuroQoL Group 2004: 23–29. ISBN 963 94 56 47 0. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Books/Measuring_Self-Reported_Population_Health_-_An_International_Perspective_based_on_EQ-5D.pdf>

77) Rencz F, Gulacsi L, Drummond M et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res 2016; 25(11): 2693–2710.

78) Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K et al. Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies: A Systematic Review and Methodological Reporting Checklist. Med Decis Making 2014; 34(1): 8–20. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13480852>.

79) Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N (eds). EQ-5D Value Sets: Springer Netherlands 2007. ISBN 978–1-4020–5510–2

80) Parkin D, Rice N, Devlin N. Statistical Analysis of EQ-5D Profiles: Does the Use of Value Sets Bias Inference? Med Decis Making 2010; 30(5): 556–565. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09357473>.

81) Clemens S, Begum N, Harper C et al. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Quality of Life Research 2014; 23(8): 2375–2381. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136–014–0676-x>.

82) Kolasa K, Lewandowski T. Does it matter whose opinion we seek regarding the allocation of healthcare resources? – a case study. Bmc Health Serv Res 2015; 15:564. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913–015–1210–8>.

83) Pinto-Prades J, Sanchez-Martinez F, Corbacho B et al. Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Soc Sci Med 2014; 113: 5–14. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.039>.

84) Rowen D, Brazier J, Mukuria C et al. Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life. Med Decis Making 2016; 36(2): 210–222. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15619389>.

85) Brazier J (ed) et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press: Oxford-New York 2007. ISBN 978–0198569824.

86) Garau M, Shah KK, Mason AR et al. Using QALYs in Cancer A Review of the Methodological Limitations. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29(8): 673–685. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11588250–000000000–00000>.

87) Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society‘s health values? BMJ 2004; 329(7476): 1233–1236.

88) Ungar WJ. Challenges in Health State Valuation in Paediatric Economic Evaluation Are QALYs Contraindicated? Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29(8): 641–652. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/11591570–000000000–00000>.

89) Chisholm D, Healey A, Knapp M. QALYs and mental health care. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1997; 32(2): 68–75.

90) Knapp M, Mangalore R. „The trouble with QALYs ...“. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2007; 16(4): 289–293.

91) Fitzpatrick R, Chambers J, Burns T et al. A systematic review of outcome measures used in forensic mental health research with consensus panel opinion. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14(18): 1–94. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta14180>.

92) de Lissovoy G, Gutierrez LTJ, Peeters R. Features of therapeutic and diagnostic devices: Are they unique? In: Ackerman SJ (ed). Therapeutic and diagnostic device outcomes research. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR): Lawrenceville (NJ) 2011: 11–18. ISBN 9780974328928.

93) Rogalewicz V. Health technology assessment as a tool for medical devices management in hospitals. 2015 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB) 2015. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EHB.2015.7391561>.

94) Rosina J, Rogalewicz V, Ivlev I et al. Health Technology Assessment for Medical Devices. Lekar a technika – Clinician and Technology (CTJ) 2014; 44(3): 23–36.

95) Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs, same or different? Value Health 2009; 12(4): 402–404. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2008.00476_1.x>.

96) Rogalewicz V, Jurickova I. Specificities of Medical Devices Affecting Health Technology Assessment Methodology. Proceedings IWBBIO2014: International Work-Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. Vol 1 and 2. 2014: 1229–1234.

97) Markiewicz K, van Til J, IJzerman M. Medical devices early assessment methods: systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(2):137–146. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462314000026>.

98) Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Kriza C et al. EMN’ NL-ECMTMV: Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 262. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913–015–0930–0>.

99) Fiddelers AAA, Dirksen CD, Dumoulin JC et al. Cost-effectiveness of seven IVF strategies: results of a Markov decision-analytic model. Hum Reprod 2009; 24(7): 1648–1655. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep041>.

100) Drummond MF. Challenges in the economic evaluation of orphan drugs. Eurohealth 2008; 14(2): 16–17.

101) Doležal T. Financování léčiv pro vzácná onemocnění. iHETA 2014. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.iheta.org/p63-financovani-leciv-pro-vzacna-onemocneni>.

102) Kind P, Lafata JE, Matuszewski K et al. The Use of QALYs in Clinical and Patient Decision-Making: Issues and Prospects. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 1): S27-S30. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524–4733.2009.00519.x>.

103) Culyer AJ. The morality of efficiency in health care – some uncomfortable implications. Health Econ 1992; 1(1): 7–18.

104) Buxton MJ, Chambers JD. What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies? Eur J Health Econ 2011; 12(4): 285–288. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198–011–0320–4>.

105) [CADTH]. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Ottawa 2006.

106) Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia December 2009. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra 2009.

107) Zákon č. 48/1997 Sb. o veřejném zdravotním pojištění a o změně a doplnění některých souvisejících zákonů [aktuální znění ke dni 10.3.2017]. In. Sbírka zákonů České republiky. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1997–48>.

108) ČFAS: Doporučené postupy České farmakoekonomické společnosti (ČFES) pro zdravotně-ekonomická hodnocení v ČR. Dostupné z WWW: <http://farmakoekonomika.cz/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Doporučené-postupy_final.pdf>

109) Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13(5): 437–452.

110) Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Value Health 2012; 15(8): 1172–1181. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.015>.

111) Health Technology Assessment (ISSN 1366–5278). NHS (National Institute for Health Research): Southampton. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/#/>.

112) EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 WP: HTA Core Model ® version 3.0 (Pdf): EUnetHTA: 2016. Dostupné z WWW: .

113) Drummond M, McGuire A (eds). Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford-New York: 2002. ISBN 978–0192631763.

114) Popper KR. Conjectures and refutations; the growth of scientific knowledge. Basic Books: New York 1962.

115) Popper KR. Logika vědeckého bádání. OIKOYMENH: Praha 1997. ISBN 80–86005–45–3.