Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service

European Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 163-174

  Richardson, Jeff R J ^a   McKie, John ^a   Peacock, Stuart J ^b,c   Iezzi, Angelo ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assessment of quality of life (AQoL); Cost utility analysis (CUA); Person trade off (PTO); Severity; Social preferences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AVERSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST OF ILLNESS; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF REPORT; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOCIAL VALUES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 79958123521     PISSN: 16187598     EISSN: 16187601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-010-0249-z     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Callahan, D.: Setting mental health priorities: problems and possibilities. Milbank Q. 72, 451-470 (1994)
2. Cohen, B.J.: Utility measurement and the allocation of health care resources. Med. Decis. Making 15, 287-288 (1995)
3. Campbell, A., Gillett, G.: Justice and the right to health care. In: Ethical Issues in Defining Core Services. The National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, Wellington (1993)
4. Dutch Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in Health Care. Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, Rijswijk (1992)
5. Swedish Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission: No Easy Choices: The Difficulties of Health Care. Sveriges offentl- ige utredninger, 1993. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm (1993)
6. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971)
7. Daniels, N.: Just Health Care. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)
8. Ubel, P.A., Arnold, R.M., et al.: Rationing failure: the ethical lessons of the retransplantation of scarce vital organs. JAMA 270, 2469-2474 (1993) (Pubitemid 23342297)
9. Wikler, D.: Equity, efficiency, and the point system for transplant recipient selection. Transplant. Proc. 21, 3437-3439 (1989) (Pubitemid 20145158)
10. Nord, E.: Helsepolitikere ønsker ikke mest mulig helse per krone (Health politicians do not wish to maximize health benefits). J. Norwegian Med. Assoc. 113, 1171-1173 (1993)
11. Dolan, P., Green, C.: Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ. 7, 307-312 (1998) (Pubitemid 28339959)
12. Ubel, P.A.: How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 895-903 (1999) (Pubitemid 29354399)
13. Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J. Health Econ. 24, 703-714 (2005) (Pubitemid 40800154)
14. Nord, E.: Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome lack of discussion of surprising finding: discussion. J. Health Econ. 25, 170-172 (2006)
15. Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome criticism of inconvenient finding? A reply to Erik Nord. J. Health Econ. 25, 173-174 (2006)
16. Nord, E.: The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int. J. Health Plann. Manage. 6, 234-242 (1991)
17. Nord, E.: The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 24, 227-238 (1993) (Pubitemid 23280732)
18. Nord, E., Richardson, J., et al.: Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian Surveys. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 9, 463-478 (1993) (Pubitemid 23348733)
19. Ubel, P.A., Spranca, M.D., et al.: Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure. Med. Decis. Making 18, 141-148 (1998) (Pubitemid 28169583)
20. Prades, J.-L.P.: Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ. 6, 71-81 (1997)
21. Ubel, P.A., Loewenstein, G., et al.: Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregons cost-effectiveness list failed. Med. Decis. Making 16, 108-116 (1996) (Pubitemid 126501138)
22. Richardson, J.: Critique and some recent contributions to the theory of cost utility analysis. In: Working Paper 77. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (1997)
23. Nord, E.: Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999)
24. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument: overview of the assessment of quality of life mark 2 project. In: Working Paper 144. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004a)
25. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument: derivation of the scaling weights using a multiplicative model and econometric second stage correction. In: Working Paper 142. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004b)
26. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: Conceptualising the assessment of quality of life instrument mark 2 (AQoL 2): methodological innovations and the development of the AQoL descriptive system. In: Working Paper 141. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004c)
27. Peacock, S., Richardson, J., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument. The effect of deliberation and alternative utility weights in a multi-attribute utility instrument. In: Working Paper 143. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004)
28. Richardson, J., Day, N., et al.: Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument. Aus. Econ. Rev. 37, 62-88 (2004) (Pubitemid 38536560)
29. Schwarzinger, M., Lanoe, J.-L., et al.: Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade-off responses. Health Econ. 13, 171-181 (2004) (Pubitemid 38208178)
30. Nord, E., Undrum Enge, A., et al.: QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. doi:10.1002/hec.1497, 10.1002/hec.1497 (2009)
31. Richardson, J., McKie, J.: Economic evaluation of services for a national health scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework. J. Health Econ. 26, 785-799 (2007) (Pubitemid 46802842)
32. Richardson, J., McKie, J., et al.: A critique of efficiency focussed economic evaluation in the context of a NHS: the case for empirical ethics, Research Paper 34. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne (2009)
33. Harris, J.: Qualifying the value of life. J. Med. Ethics 13, 117-123 (1987)
34. Daniels, N.: Rationing fairly: programmatic considerations. Bioethics 7, 224-233 (1993)
35. Scanlon, T.M.: Preference and urgency. J. Philos. LXXII, 655-669 (1975)
36. Nord, E., Richardson, J., et al.: Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc. Sci. Med. 41, 1429-1437 (1995)
37. Abellan-Perpinan, J.-M., Prades, J.-L.P.: Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ. 8, 701-707 (1999) (Pubitemid 30019125)
38. Ubel, P.A., Richardson, J., et al. Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy 61, 189-199 (2002) (Pubitemid 34667217)
39. Dolan, P., Cookson, R.: A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51, 19-30 (2000) (Pubitemid 30089756)
40. Nord, E.: QALYS: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. (2009) doi: 10.1002/hec.1497. Accessed 3 July 2009
41. Nord, E.: The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients. J. Med. Ethics 19, 37-43 (1993)
42. Kymlicka, W.: Contemporary Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)
43. Green, R.M.: Health care and justice in contract theory perspective. In: Branson, R. (ed.) Ethics and Health Policy, pp. 111-126. Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge (1976)
44. Pigden, C.: Logic and the autonomy of ethics. Australas. J. Philos. 67, 127-151 (1989)
45. Nord, E., Pinto-Prades, J.L., et al.: Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 8, 25-39 (1999) (Pubitemid 29057353)
46. Nord, E.: Health state values from multiattribute instruments need correction. Ann. Med. 33, 371-374 (2001) (Pubitemid 32675378)
47. Nord, E.: Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of health care interventions. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 1, 85-92 (2001) (Pubitemid 34649749)