Utilities should not be multiplied: Evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States

Medical Care

Volumn 46, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 984-990

  Fu, Alex Z ^a   Kattan, Michael W ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; EQ 5D; Joint health states; Medical decision making; Multiplicative; Utilities

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMORBIDITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; ADOLESCENT; AGED; CHRONIC DISEASE; CONSUMER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHRONIC DISEASE; COMORBIDITY; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 50949093888     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181791a9c     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Berger ML, Bingefors K, Hedblom EC, et al, eds. Health Care Cost, Quality, and Outcomes. ISPOR Book of Terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: International Society for Pharmoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2003.
2. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276: 1253-1258.
3. Kattan MW. Comparing treatment outcomes using utility assessment for health-related quality of life. Oncology (Williston Park). 2003;17:1687- 1693.
4. Michaels JA, Brazier JE, Campbell WB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing surgery with conservative treatment for uncomplicated varicose veins. Br J Surg. 2006;93:175-181.
5. Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA. 2005;294:2630-2632.
6. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcome Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
7. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43:736-749.
8. Schneeweis S, Seeger JD, Maclure M, et al. Performance of co-morbidity scores to control for confounding in epidemiologic studies using claims data. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:854-864.
9. Mathers CD, Sadana R, Salomon JA, et al. Healthy life expectancy in 191 countries, 1999. Lancet. 2001;357:1685-1691.
10. Mathers CD, Iburg KM, Begg SB. Adjusting for dependent comorbidity in the calculation of healthy life expectancy. Population Health Metrics. 2006;4:4.
11. Flanagan W, McIntosh CN, Petit CL, et al. Deriving utility scores for co-morbid conditions: a test of the multiplicative model for combining individual condition scores. Population Health Metr. 2006;4:13.
12. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:321-326.
13. Dolan P. Modeling variations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
14. Claes C, Greiner W, Uber A. An interview-based comparison of the TTO and VAS values given to EuroQol states of health by the general German population. In: Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, Piercy J, eds. Proceedings of the 15th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Hannover, Germany: Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research, University of Hannover; 1999:13-38.
15. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, et al. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7-16.
16. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11:341-353.
17. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen JT, Gudex C. Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using the time trade-off (TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS) methods. In: Norinder AL, Pedersen KM, Roos P, eds. Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Copenhagen, Den-mark: Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 2002:257-292.
18. Jelsma J, Hansen K, de Weerdt W, et al. How do Zimbabweans value health statesfi Popul Health Metr. 2003;1:1-11.
19. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
20. Weights and response rates for the self-administered questionnaire. MEPS HC-079:2003 full year consolidated data file. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005: c123-c124.
21. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
22. Miller W. The significance of using US-valued EQ-5D health states for comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies in US populations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:229-230.
23. Elixhauser A, Steiner CA,Whittington CA, et al. Clinical Classifications for health policy research: Hospital inpatient statistics, 1995. Healthcare Cost and Utilization project, HCUP-3 research Note. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.
24. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255-268.
25. Carrasco JL, Jover L. Estimating the generalized concordance correlation coefficient through variance components. Biometrics. 2003;59:849-858.
26. Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis, Part 3: estimating probabilities and utilities. Medical Decision Making. 1997;17:136-141.
27. Yu WW, Machlin SR. An examination of skewed health expenditure data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). J Econ Soc Meas. 2005;30:127-134.
28. Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:155-166.
29. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38:115-121.
30. Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Racial and ethnic differences in preference-based health status measure. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2006; 22:2439-2448.
31. Johnson TP, O'Rourke D, Chavez N. Cultural variations in the interpretation of health survey questions. In: Warnecke RB, ed. Health Survey Research Methods. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1996:57-62.
32. Gross R, Bentur N, Elhayany A, et al. The validity of self-reports on chronic disease: characteristics of underreporters and implications for the planning of services. Public Health Rev. 1996;24:167-182.
33. Houtveen JH, Oei NY. Recall bias in reporting medically unexplained symptoms comes from semantic memory. J Psychosom Res. 2007;62: 277-282.
34. Ebner-Priemer UW, Kuo J, Welch SS, et al. A valence-dependent group-specific recall bias of retrospective self-reports: a study of borderline personality disorder in everyday life. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006; 194:774-779.
35. Leventan CS, Passaro M, Jablonski K, et al. Unrecognized diabetes among hospitalized patients. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:246-249.
36. Suppes T, Leverich GS, Keck PE, et al. The Stanley foundation bipolar treatment outcome network. II. Demographics and illness characteristics of the first 261 patients. J Affect Disord. 2001;67:45-59.
37. Rockett IR, Putnam SL, Jia H, et al. Declared and undeclared substance use among emergency department patients: a population-based study. Addiction. 2006;101:706-712.
38. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26: 410-420.
39. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may infiuence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:93-106.
40. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF Jr. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:276-284.
41. Esnaola NF, Doherty DA, Johnson ML, et al. Comparison of additive and multiplicative utility functions to predict the utilities of combined health states. Abstract presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, October 21-24, 2001, San Diego, CA.
42. Basu A, DaleW, Elstein A, et al. A simple linear function to predict joint state utilities from single state utilities in prostate cancer. Abstract presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, October 15-18, 2006, Boston, MA.
43. DaleW, Basu A, Elstein A, et al. Logical and illogical joint state utilities in prostate cancer. Abstract presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, October 15-18, 2006, Boston, MA.
44. Cowen ME, Miles BJ, Cahill DF, et al. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:376-380.
45. Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and value of individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:112-127.