WTP for a QALY and health states: More money for severer health states?

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Shiroiwa, Takeru ^a   Igarashi, Ataru ^b   Fukuda, Takashi ^a   Ikeda, Shunya ^c  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Quality adjusted life years; Threshold; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE SEVERITY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INCOME; JAPAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MONEY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; TERMINAL CARE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84883137155     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14787547     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-22     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care progrmmes 3rd edition 2005, Oxford: Oxford university press.
2. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 1996, New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Weinstein MC. A QALY is a QALY is a QALY - or Is It?. J Health Econ 1988, 7(3):289-290. 10.1016/0167-6296(88)90030-6, 10291478.
4. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005, 14(2):197-208. 10.1002/hec.924, 15386656.
5. Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008, Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
6. Department of health A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines 2010, Department of health.
7. Shah KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 2009, 93(2-3):77-84.
8. Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999, 8(1):25-39. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<25::AID-HEC398>3.0.CO;2-H, 10082141.
9. Shiroiwa T, Sung YK, Fukuda T, et al. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?. Health Econ 2010, 19(4):422-437. 10.1002/hec.1481, 19382128.
10. Donaldson C, Baker R, Mason H, et al. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:8. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-8, 3023672, 21223540.
11. Baker R, Bateman I, Donaldson C, et al. Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technol Assess 2010, 14(27):1-162.
12. Robinson A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Bacon P, et al. Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: The 'chained' approach. Soc Sci Med 2013, 92:92-104.
13. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation 1993,
14. Turnbull BW. The empirical distribution function from arbitarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J Roy Stat Soc B. 1976, 38:290-295.
15. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2009, National livelihood survey.
16. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2010, Population survey.
17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2011, Education at a Glance.
18. College voor Zorgverzekeringen College voor Zorgverzekeringen 2006, Pakketbeheer in de praktijk, College voor Zorgverzekeringen.
19. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ 1997, 6(2):117-132. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199703)6:2<117::AID-HEC256>3.0.CO;2-B, 9158965.
20. Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22(17):1097-1107. 10.2165/00019053-200422170-00001, 15612829.
21. NICE Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008, NICE.
22. CADTH Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies 2006, CADTH.
23. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments 2009, National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
24. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ 2003, 12(12):1049-1060. 10.1002/hec.799, 14673813.
25. Bobinac A, Van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, Brouwer WB. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: the individual perspective. Value Health 2010, 13(8):1046-1055. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00781.x, 20825620.
26. King JT, Tsevat J, Lave JR, Roberts MS. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med Decis Making 2005, 25(6):667-677. 10.1177/0272989X05282640, 16282217.
27. Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010, 70(3):346-349. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03589.x, 2949905, 20716233.