Exploring Variations in the Opportunity Cost Cost-effectiveness Threshold by Clinical Area: Results from a Feasibility Study in England
![Front Cover (V2)](https://www.ohe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Front-Cover-V2_0.jpg)
In Britain, the tax-payer pays the lion’s share of the national bill for medicines through the tax-supported NHS.
There can be no doubt that the supplier of this long list of compounds, new and old, the pharmaceutical industry, gets a bad press. I am personally persuaded that this is at least in part because today’s newspaper, radio and television producers, researchers, newscasters and programme people are generally young, attractive and healthy. Compared with older people, they have been well protected from illness and consequently have little appreciation of the contribution medicines now make to the quality of life of so many of our citizens. Doctors, whatever the public may be guided to think, are convinced about the therapeutic revolution and prescribe these very powerful substances and vigorously defend their rights to do so under their clinical freedom.
In the end, the catastrophic side-effects of a very small number—less than a score out of the thousands of compounds provided under the N HS—have themselves had some good side-effects. They have resulted in a drive to develop measures aimed at assessing the quality of life as part of clinical trials of new treatments. So an important by-product has also been the growing interest in assessing health, rather than disease. For far too long, doctors have been accused by their rivals in the market place—homoeopathists, acupuncturists and so on—of being completely dominated by the concepts of disease and treating patients with potentially dangerous chemically derived medicines. Indeed, this sort of idea has spilled over as a criticism of medical training programmes currently in use. I still get plenty of letters and remarks about the so-called but reviled ‘medical model’, which seems to be a belief that doctors do regard their patients as cases of diseases and categorize them as so, and then treat them by computer-directed regimens—a sad reflection of the profession’s willingness to accept modern technology and start to record clinical details in easily accessed computer data-banks!
So it is very apt that just at the moment Professor George Teeling Smith and his expert colleagues got together and now publish their discussions about how health professions can measure health, which is what the patients and their relatives naturally have become primarily interested in, now that we can treat effectively so many diseases which were masters of our bodies and fates in the recent past.
I therefore hope that this book will be very widely read, very widely discussed and that it will stimulate more work in this important field. I hope too that the dear public reader will recognize what it is all about—part of our reaching up for the best in medicine, therapeutics and health promotion generally.
An error has occurred, please try again later.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!