Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:1237-1238 (29 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7426.1237
Not much: guidelines must consider cost effectiveness
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
From air travel to patient safety to coronary heart disease prevention, people strive to reduce risk to zero. We know that zero risk is unattainable, yet we pursue perfection. It may be useful to hold perfection as an ideal,1 but there can be great harm in trying to achieve it because near perfection often imposes near infinite costs. The closer we get to perfect risk reduction, the more likely it becomes that we could have got a better bang for our preventive buck somewhere else. This applies across all activitiesand needs to be heeded in health care as anywhere else.
For example, air travel is already much safer than most other forms of travel, so £10m ($17m; €14m) spent on road safety would save far more life years than £10m put into tightening airport security. Yet since September 11 much new spending has gone into airport security. In health too
Rebecca N Warburton, assistant professor
(rnwarbur@uvic.ca), School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Canada
Read all Rapid Responses