Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The 'chained' approach

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 92-104

  Robinson, Angela ^a   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^b   Bacon, Philomena ^e   Baker, Rachel ^c   Pennington, Mark ^d   Donaldson, Cam ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

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

^e UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chained approach; Contingent valuation (CV); Europe; Health state utility assessment; Stated preference; Willingness to pay (WTP); WTP per QALY

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ESTIMATION METHOD; HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; EUROPE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STANDARD GAMBLE; TIME TRADE OFF; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHAINED APPROACH; CONTINGENT VALUATION (CV); EUROPE; HEALTH STATE UTILITY ASSESSMENT; STATED PREFERENCE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP); WTP PER QALY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DATA COLLECTION; EUROPE; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EUROPE;

EID: 84880390631     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Abellan-Perpinan J.M., Pinto-Prades J., Mendez-Martinez I., Badia-Llach X. Towards a better QALY model. Health Economics 2006, 15:665-676.
2. Baker R., Bateman I., Donaldson C., Jones-Lee M., Lancsar E., Loomes G., et al. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the social value of a QALY project. Health Technology Assessment 2010, 14.
3. Baker R., Chilton S., Donaldson C., Jones-Lee M., Lanscar E., Mason H., et al. Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2011, 6:435-447.
4. Baker R., Robinson A., Smith R. How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics 2007, 37:1427-1442.
5. Beattie J., Covey J., Dolan P., Hopkins L., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., et al. Onthe contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1 - caveat investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1998, 17:5-25.
6. Bleichrodt H., Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?. Journal of Health Economics 1999, 18:681-708.
7. Byrne M.M., O'Malley K., Suarez A. Willingness to pay per quality adjusted life year in a study of knee osteoarthritis. Medical Decision Making 2005, 25:655-666.
8. 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. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 17(3):187-213.
9. Covey J., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Robinson A. Valuing the prevention of food-borne illness: some limitations of consumers' willingness to pay. Risk Decision and Policy 1998, 3(3):245-259.
10. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):45-56.
11. Doctor J.N., Miyamoto J.M. Deriving quality adjusted life years (QALYs) from constant proportional time trade off and risk posture conditions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2003, 47(5-6):557-567.
12. Dolan P., Edlin R. Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis?. Journal of Health Economics 2002, 21:827-843.
13. Dubourg W.R., Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 1997, 64:681-702.
14. Dziegielewska D.A., Mendelsohn R. Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 38:71-87.
15. Fischhoff B., Furby L. Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1988, 1:147-184.
16. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Economics 2003, 12:1049-1060.
17. Gyrd-Hansen D., Kjær T. Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers. Health Economics 2012, 21(3):222-237.
18. Gyrd-Hansen D., Kjær T., Nielsen J.S. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?. Health Economics 2012, 21(2):101-112.
19. Hammitt J.K., Graham J.D. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 18:33-62.
20. House of Commons-Health Committee, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, HC 27-I, The Stationery Office, Jan 2008.
21. Johannesson M. The relationship between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Social Science & Medicine 1995, 41(4):483-489.
22. Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G. Scale and context effects in the valuation of transport safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1995, 11:183-203.
23. Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G., Philips P.R. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers 1995, 47:676-695.
24. King J.T., Tsevat J., Lave J.R., Roberts M. Willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Medical Decision Making 2005, 25:667-677.
25. Kvamme M.K., Gyrd-Hansen D., Abel Olsen J., Sonbo Kristiansen I. Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life expectancy? Results from a population survey. Journal of Health Economics 2010, 29:541-548.
26. Lieu T.A., Ray G.T., Ortega-Sanchez I.R., Kleinman K., Rusinak D., Prosser L.A. Willingness to pay for a QALY based on community member and patient preferences for temporary health states associated with herpes zoster. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27(12):1005-1016.
27. Martin S., Rice N., Smith P.C. Does health care spending improve health outcomes? Evidence from English programme budgeting data. Journal of Health Economics 2008, 27:826-842.
28. Mason H., Jones-Lee M., Donaldson C. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data. Health Economics 2009, 18:933-950.
29. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57(4):83-594.
30. Phelps C.E., Mushlin A.I. On the (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1991, 7:12-21.
31. Pinto-Prades J.L., Loomes G., Brey R. Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY. Journal of Health Economics 2009, 28:553-562.
32. Robinson A., Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Economics 2006, 15:393-402.
33. Shiroiwa T., Sung Y.-K., Fukuda T., Lang H.-C., Bae S.-C., Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost-effectiveness?. Health Economics 2010, 19:422-437.
34. Smith R.D., Sach T.C. Contingent valuation: what needs to be done?. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2010, 5:91-111.