Responses
Editorial
NICE discrimination
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 4 January 2006
- Published on: 4 January 2006Without foundationShow More
Dear Editor,
It is extraordinary that Rawlins and Dillon can open their paper with the accusation that Harris has 'no understanding of the quality adjusted life year'. I can only conclude that they did no background reading, other than reading Harris's editorial (1), before they wrote their response to him.
One would also think, from reading Rawlins and Dillon, that there was no argument at all about QALYs,...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- Nice and not so nice
- National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments
- A cost-effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors
- Cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy
- Economic analysis of endovascular drug-eluting treatments for femoropopliteal artery disease in the UK
- Dabigatran etexilate versus warfarin in management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation in UK context: quantitative benefit-harm and economic analyses
- NICE and neurology
- Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions
- Screening for postnatal depression in primary care: cost effectiveness analysis
- The cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk