Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project

Odejar, Maria and Baker, Rachel and Ryan, Mandy and Donalson, Cam and Bateman, Ian J. and Jones-Lee, M and Lancsar, Emily and Mason, Helen and Pinto Paredes, JL and Robinson, A and Shackley, P and Smith, R and Sugdem, R and Wildman, John (2010): Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Published in: Health Technology Assessment , Vol. 14, No. 27 (1 May 2010): pp. 1-178.

Abstract

Abstract To identify characteristics of beneficiaries of health care over which relative weights shobe derived and to estimate relative weights to be attached to health gains according to characteristics of recipients of these gains (relativities study); and to assess the feasibility of estimating a willingness-to- pay (WTP)-based value of a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (valuation study) an interview-based survey was administered – one (for the relativities study) to a nationally representative sample of the population in England and the other (for the valuation study) to a smaller convenience sample. The two surveys were administered by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in respondents’ homes.

Discrete choice results showed that age and severity variables did not have a strong impact on respondents’ choices over and above the health (QALY) gains presented. In contrast, matching showed age and severity impacts to be strong: depending on method of aggregation, gains to some groups were weighted three to four times more highly than gains to others. Results from the WTP and SG questions were combined in different ways to arrive at values of a QALY. These vary from values which are in the vicinity of the current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) threshold to extremely high values.

With respect to relative weights, more research is required to explore methodological differences with respect to age and severity weighting. On valuation, there are particular issues concerning the extent to which ‘noise’ and ‘error’ in people’s responses might generate extreme and unreliable figures. Methods of aggregation and measures of central tendency were issues in both weighting and valuation procedures and require further exploration.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: DISCRETE-CHOICE; MATCHING; QUALITY-ADJUSTED-LIFE-YEAR; RELATIVITIES; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I12 - Health Behavior; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being

References

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 cost- effectiveness 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 publicly- provided 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. Protière C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti JP, Shackley P. The impact of information on non- health 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 cost- effectiveness 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 quality- adjusted 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.