Funding of expensive treatments for rare (orphan) diseases is contentious. These agents fare poorly on 'efficiency' or health economic measures, such as the quality-adjusted life years, because of high cost and frequently poor gains in quality of life and survival. We show that cost-effectiveness assessments are flawed, and have only a limited role to play in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs and beyond.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hyry et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: