We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Commentary |

What Is the Price of Life and Why Doesn't It Increase at the Rate of Inflation?

Peter A. Ubel, MD; Richard A. Hirth, PhD; Michael E. Chernew, PhD; A. Mark Fendrick, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(14):1637-1641. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.14.1637.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


AN ARTICLE in the February 2000 issue of JAMA concluded that annual retinal screening for many individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus may not be warranted on grounds of cost-effectiveness. Vijan et al1 reported that, compared with biannual screening, annual retinopathy screening for low-risk patients with diabetes costs more than $100 000 for each additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The results of a study published in the March 2000 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that extending hospital stays beyond 4 days for patients with uncomplicated myocardial infarctions was economically unattractive, costing more than $105 000 per QALY gained.2 These studies demonstrate that commonly used interventions may not be worthwhile investments of health care resources. By contrast, a study published in the June 2000 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that, compared with no treatment, sildenafil (Viagra) is a cost-effective treatment for erectile dysfunction, producing an incremental QALY for the relatively low cost of $11 000.3 The latter study raises questions about whether many health care insurers were hasty in deciding that they would not add sildenafil to the list of services covered by their health plans.4

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

310 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
What are the Results?

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
How Much Does Allowing for Uncertainty Change the Results?