Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: Preliminary results from the social value of a QALY project

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 14, Issue 27, 2010, Pages

  Baker, R ^a,b   Bateman, I ^c   Donaldson, C ^a,b   Jones Lee, M ^d   Lancsar, E ^a,d   Loomes, G ^e   Mason, H ^a   Odejar, M ^f   Pinto Prades, J L ^g,h   Robinson, A ⁱ   Ryan, M ^f   Shackley, P ^j   Smith, R ^k   Sugden, R ^e   Wildman, J ^d  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^d NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSIDAD PABLO DE OLAVIDE   (Spain)

^h Centro de Estudios Andaluces   (Spain)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^k LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEADACHE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; INTERVIEW; LIFESTYLE; POPULATION RESEARCH; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL STATUS; STOMACH DISEASE; UNITED KINGDOM; AGE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; PUBLIC HEALTH; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

AGE FACTORS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FINANCING, PERSONAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HEALTH PLANNING; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 77954360579     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta14270     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1-30.
2. Williams A. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. Br Med J 1985;291:326-9.
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2007.
4. Donaldson C, Atkinson A, Bond J, Wright I. Should QALYs be programme-specific? J Health Econ 1988;7:239-57.
5. Weinstein M. A QALY is a QALY is a QALY - or is it? J Health Econ 1988;7:489-91.
6. Williams A. QALYs and ethics: a health economist's perspective. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1795-804.
7. Rawlins M, Culyer A. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004;329:224-7.
8. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a costeffectiveness threshold and what other factors influence their decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004;13:437-52.
9. Loomes G. Valuing life years and QALYs: transferability and convertibility of values across the UK public sector. In: Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N, editors. Cost effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. London: King's Fund and Office of Health Economics; 2002.
10. House of Commons Health Select Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, first report session 2007-08, volume 1. London: The Stationery Office; 2007.
11. Nord E, Street A, Richardson J, Kuhse H, Singer P. The significance of age and duration of effect in social evaluation of health care. Health Care Anal 1996;4:103-11.
12. Nord E. Towards cost-value analysis in health care? Health Care Anal 1999;7:167-75.
13. Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economics and ethical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
14. Cropper ML, Aydede SK, Portney PR. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. J Risk Uncert 1994;8:243-65.
15. Johannesson M, Johansson P-O. The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old. Health Policy 1996;37:153-61.
16. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005;14:197-208.
17. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect 2002;5:210-22.
18. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000;9:137-48.
19. Schwappach DL. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ 2003;12:255-67.
20. Johri M, Dmaschroder IJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter? Health Econ 2005;10:461-74.
21. Mason H. Monetary valuation of health outcomes for use in national policy formulation. Newcastle upon Tyne: PhD; 2007.
22. Dupuit J. On the measurement of utility of public works. [orig. 1844]. Int Econ Papers 1952;2:83-110.
23. Davis R. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nat Resource J 1963;3:239-49.
24. Jones-Lee M. The economics of safety and physical risk. Oxford: Blackwell; 1989.
25. Gafni A. Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Med Care 1991;29:1246-52.
26. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the 'dollars' make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making 1996;16:288-99.
27. Acton JP. Evaluating public programmes to save lives: the case of heart attacks. Report No.: R950RC. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 1976.
28. Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits of publiclyprovided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'? Soc Sci Med 1999;49:551-63.
29. Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The pervasiveness of the 'distribution problem' in economic evaluation in health care. Health Econ 2002;11:55-70.
30. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for anti-hypertensive therapy - results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ 1991;10:461-74.
31. Olsen JA, Smith R. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness to pay' in health and health care. Health Econ 2001;10:39-52.
32. Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 2003;12:609-28.
33. Donaldson C. Eliciting patients' values by use of 'willingness to pay': letting the theory drive the method. Health Expect 2001;4:180-8.
34. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness to pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol 2004;25:445-60.
35. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Shackley P, Group, E. Implicit versus explicit ranking: on inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay. J Health Econ 2005;24:990-6.
36. Olsen JA, Kidholm K, Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches. Health Policy 2004;70:217-28.
37. Yeung RYT, Smith RD, McGhee SM. Willingness to pay and size of health benefit: an integrated model to test for 'sensitivity to scale'. Health Econ 2003;12:791-6.
38. Smith RD. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. J Health Econ 2005;24:515-29.
39. Protiere C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti JP, Shackley P. The impact of information on nonhealth attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Soc Sci Med 2004;58: 1257-69.
40. van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA. With a little help from an anchor: evidence of starting point bias in contingent valuation of informal caregiver time inputs. J Socio-Econ 2006;35:836-53.
41. Carthy T, Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2 - the CV/SG 'chained' approach. J Risk Uncert 1999;17:187-213.
42. Johannesson M. The relationship between costeffectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:483-9.
43. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997;16:1-31.
44. Culyer A, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehurst R, et al. Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:56-8.
45. Bate A, Murtagh M, Donaldson C. Managing to manage scarce resources in the English NHS. What can economics teach? Health Policy 2007;84:249-61.
46. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick M, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a qualityadjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000;20:332-42.
47. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ 2003;12:1049-60.
48. Mason H, Marshall A, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M. Estimating a willingness to pay based value of a QALY from existing UK values of prevented fatalities and serious injuries. Birmingham: National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology; 2005.
49. Byrne MM, O'Malley K, Suarez-Almazor ME. Willingness to pay per quality adjusted life year in a study of knee osteoarthritis. Med Decis Making 2005;25:655-66.
50. King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Lave JR, Roberts M. Willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med Decis Making 2005;25:667-77.
51. Coast J, Horrocks S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:25-30.
52. Stephenson W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1953.
53. Brown SR. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. London: Yale University Press; 1980.
54. Baker R, Thompson C, Mannion R. Q methodology in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy 2006;11:38-45.
55. Brown SR. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subj 1993;16:91-138.
56. Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 6th edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2007.
57. Small K, Rosen H. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981;49: 105-30.
58. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004;13:901-7.
59. Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998;7:307-12.
60. Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Pidgeon N, et al. Public perceptions of risk and preference-based values of safety. J Risk Uncert 2002;25:211-32.
61. Johannesson M, Johansson P-O. Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. J Health Econ 1997;16:589-99.
62. Busschbach JJV, Hessing DJ, de Charro FT. The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach. Soc Sci Med 1993;37:153-8.
63. Ubel PA, Spranca MD, DeKay ML, Hershey JC, Asch DA. Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure? Med Decis Making 1998;18:141-8.
64. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J Health Econ 2005;24:703-14.