This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert M. Kaplan, PhD; Theodore G. Ganiats, MD
University of California, San Diego La Jolla

JAMA. 1990;264(19):2502-2503.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The article by La Puma and Lawlor¹ summarizes several common criticisms of quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs). Although there is considerable disagreement about the exact method for estimating QALYs, a growing consensus suggests there is a need for a general outcome measure that integrates morbidity and mortality into a common unit.²

La Puma and Lawlor identify ethical problems with QALYs. Yet, in each of the cases they discuss we question their understanding of the concepts, and we failed to find a genuine "problem."

They suggested that quality of life cannot be measured. In fact, there are a wide variety of measures for which there is substantial documentation of validity and reliability.³ Second, they challenge the QALY concept because community preferences are used to make decisions in individual cases. The QALY concept allows for circumstances in which individual rather than community weights are used. Community preference . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?