3 ms·
Yes, "potential person years" or a similar phrasing would have been clearer. >(Grim discussion, I guess, but I'm just not certain I agree with the unspoken ass
by jml7c5 6y ago
Yes, "potential person years" or a similar phrasing would have been clearer.
>(Grim discussion, I guess, but I'm just not certain I agree with the unspoken assumption that seems to be in that statement, that the younger the death, the more tragic/more effect on society.)
It is a matter of morality and personal ethics. I chose to mention it only because the discrepancy in this case is so large, and it felt almost misleading to not relate the information. That said, I regret framing it in such a coldly utilitarian way.
- vikramkr 6y agoThese cold terms are how these discussions are had in industry. It's the core behind value based pricing - quality adjusted life years or QALYs are what many health systems use to determine what they will or wont pay for. As long as money is scarce, these are how conversations are had. A drug that saves a child's life is worth more, and people are willing to pay more, than a drug that saves an older person's life. There are cutoffs and thresholds. In the UK, with a few exceptions, a drug cant cost much more than 30 thousand pounds for each extra quality adjusted year of life (e.g. an extra year bedridden might only count as 30% of a year, while an extra year closer to functional might count as 95%) for NICE to approve paying for it. In the developing world, the value of a human life is set at about 2x GDP per capita per QALY. In the US, for a drug to be cost effective, it should be less than 150,000 dollars per QALY (but many drugs aren't).