(light music)
- [Narrator] Attention,
anyone who cares about
the fairness and quality of healthcare.
Some insurers or health systems
are using clinical and
cost effectiveness analysis
to determine patient's access to care.
But did you know value assessments
based on clinical and cost
effectiveness analysis
can limit access to care
for chronically ill patients
and people with disabilities?
When used by insurers and government,
here's how it works.
The most common metric
used in value assessments
is the Quality-Adjusted
Life-Year, or QALY.
The QALY roles up average
findings into one number
that represents the value
of the life of each patient
with a specific condition.
Let's look at Jessica for example.
A person in perfect health
has a QALY equal to one,
while a person with multiple
sclerosis like Jessica
has a QALY equal to 0.52.
Jessica lives with a chronic condition
but has a full and happy life
raising children, working hard,
and building lasting relationships.
However, when viewed as a number
rather than as an individual
under a value assessment,
Jessica's life is valued less
than someone with perfect health.
Which means, less value is also
placed on treating Jessica.
Despite the widely
acknowledged ethical problems
related to using QALYs,
this metric continues to
underpin value assessments.
When used to make healthcare decisions,
QALY-based methods will
ultimately deem Jessica,
and others with chronic
illnesses or disabilities
as worth less than others.
And that's just not right.
To stay informed and learn
about the impact of QALYs,
visit our website at ValueOurHealth.org.
