The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it prompted a discussion about what is the value of a life and different countries around the world especially countries without private insurance but instead those with public insurance had to put something called the quality at the front of that discussion a quality adjusted life year
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the NHS had this $100,000 quality adjusted life-year hurdle yeah so they were which is understandable right that's how you throttle supply side economics they said "Look we can't pay for a drug we can't pay more than $100,000 for an incremental year of quality adjusted life here this is only giving you eight months."
Avasten was $100,000 for the treatment, extends median survival by whatever, but I think it was 8 months.
The NHS said we are not paying for this. Because at the time the NIH uh pardon me, the NHS had this $100,000 quality adjusted life-year hurdle. Yeah. So they were, which is understandable, right? That's how you throttle supply side economics. They said, "Look, we can't pay for a drug. We can't pay more than $100,000 for an incremental year of quality adjusted life here. This is only giving you eight months."