Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment
Background To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the eq...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PharmacoEconomics 2015-12, Vol.33 (12), p.1289-1300 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1300 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 1289 |
container_title | PharmacoEconomics |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | van de Wetering, Liesbet van Exel, Job Bobinac, Ana Brouwer, Werner B. F. |
description | Background
To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored.
Objective
The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains.
Methods
We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models.
Results
The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients.
Conclusion
These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4661217</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714598261</galeid><sourcerecordid>A714598261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-b34cc78a8906fb261429f6f08f764ee7241d2f2abe5d45862175779252da25103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uk1v1DAQtRCIfsAP4IIsceGSYjuOnVyQVtulIK2EQCwSJ8vrTLausvbWTtD23zPpltIikA-2Zt57M288hLzi7Iwzpt9lyYQuC8argpWcF_sn5Jhz3RQC409v36zQqmFH5CTnK8aYKrV4To6EEqXgTXNMVt9tP_qwoV9myx-Z-kC_Qm8HHwMdIl1cj364ofMYsm8h3cYzXeWJYOm5zy7BAHR-Gb0DutjvIPkthOEFedbZPsPLu_uUrD4svs0_FsvPF5_ms2XhFNNDsS6lc7q2dcNUtxaKS9F0qmN1p5UE0ELyVnTCrqFqZVUrwXWldSMq0VpRcVaekvcH3d243kLrsHSyvdlhFzbdmGi9eZwJ_tJs4k8jleKohgJv7wRSvB4hD2aLpqDvbYA4ZoMQLTVW5Qh98xf0Ko4poD0ztSW0woH-QW1sD8aHLmJdN4mameayamq0iaizf6DwtLD1LgboPMYfEfiB4FLMOUF375EzM-2COeyCwV0w0y6YPXJePxzOPeP35yNAHAAZU2ED6YGj_6r-AvKPvSE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1757276199</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>van de Wetering, Liesbet ; van Exel, Job ; Bobinac, Ana ; Brouwer, Werner B. F.</creator><creatorcontrib>van de Wetering, Liesbet ; van Exel, Job ; Bobinac, Ana ; Brouwer, Werner B. F.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored.
Objective
The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains.
Methods
We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models.
Results
The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients.
Conclusion
These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1170-7690</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-2027</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26232199</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Age ; Analysis ; Beneficiaries ; Choice Behavior ; Consumer behavior ; Cost benefit analysis ; Costs ; Decision making ; Delivery of Health Care - economics ; Disease - economics ; Econometric models ; Equity ; Experiments ; Health Administration ; Health care industry ; Health Economics ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; Illnesses ; Intervention ; Medical care, Cost of ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Methods ; Models, Economic ; Netherlands ; Original ; Original Research Article ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Preferences ; Principles ; Public Health ; Quality of life ; Quality of Life Research ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Regression analysis ; Severity of Illness Index ; Society ; Studies ; Willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>PharmacoEconomics, 2015-12, Vol.33 (12), p.1289-1300</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Springer</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media Dec 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-b34cc78a8906fb261429f6f08f764ee7241d2f2abe5d45862175779252da25103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-b34cc78a8906fb261429f6f08f764ee7241d2f2abe5d45862175779252da25103</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26232199$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van de Wetering, Liesbet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Exel, Job</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobinac, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouwer, Werner B. F.</creatorcontrib><title>Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment</title><title>PharmacoEconomics</title><addtitle>PharmacoEconomics</addtitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><description>Background
To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored.
Objective
The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains.
Methods
We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models.
Results
The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients.
Conclusion
These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Beneficiaries</subject><subject>Choice Behavior</subject><subject>Consumer behavior</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Delivery of Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Disease - economics</subject><subject>Econometric models</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Health Administration</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medical care, Cost of</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Models, Economic</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Research Article</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Principles</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Willingness to pay</subject><issn>1170-7690</issn><issn>1179-2027</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uk1v1DAQtRCIfsAP4IIsceGSYjuOnVyQVtulIK2EQCwSJ8vrTLausvbWTtD23zPpltIikA-2Zt57M288hLzi7Iwzpt9lyYQuC8argpWcF_sn5Jhz3RQC409v36zQqmFH5CTnK8aYKrV4To6EEqXgTXNMVt9tP_qwoV9myx-Z-kC_Qm8HHwMdIl1cj364ofMYsm8h3cYzXeWJYOm5zy7BAHR-Gb0DutjvIPkthOEFedbZPsPLu_uUrD4svs0_FsvPF5_ms2XhFNNDsS6lc7q2dcNUtxaKS9F0qmN1p5UE0ELyVnTCrqFqZVUrwXWldSMq0VpRcVaekvcH3d243kLrsHSyvdlhFzbdmGi9eZwJ_tJs4k8jleKohgJv7wRSvB4hD2aLpqDvbYA4ZoMQLTVW5Qh98xf0Ko4poD0ztSW0woH-QW1sD8aHLmJdN4mameayamq0iaizf6DwtLD1LgboPMYfEfiB4FLMOUF375EzM-2COeyCwV0w0y6YPXJePxzOPeP35yNAHAAZU2ED6YGj_6r-AvKPvSE</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>van de Wetering, Liesbet</creator><creator>van Exel, Job</creator><creator>Bobinac, Ana</creator><creator>Brouwer, Werner B. F.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment</title><author>van de Wetering, Liesbet ; van Exel, Job ; Bobinac, Ana ; Brouwer, Werner B. F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c607t-b34cc78a8906fb261429f6f08f764ee7241d2f2abe5d45862175779252da25103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Beneficiaries</topic><topic>Choice Behavior</topic><topic>Consumer behavior</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Delivery of Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Disease - economics</topic><topic>Econometric models</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Health Administration</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medical care, Cost of</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Models, Economic</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Research Article</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Principles</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van de Wetering, Liesbet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Exel, Job</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bobinac, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brouwer, Werner B. F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van de Wetering, Liesbet</au><au>van Exel, Job</au><au>Bobinac, Ana</au><au>Brouwer, Werner B. F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment</atitle><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle><stitle>PharmacoEconomics</stitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1289</spage><epage>1300</epage><pages>1289-1300</pages><issn>1170-7690</issn><eissn>1179-2027</eissn><abstract>Background
To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored.
Objective
The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains.
Methods
We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models.
Results
The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients.
Conclusion
These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>26232199</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1170-7690 |
ispartof | PharmacoEconomics, 2015-12, Vol.33 (12), p.1289-1300 |
issn | 1170-7690 1179-2027 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4661217 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Age Analysis Beneficiaries Choice Behavior Consumer behavior Cost benefit analysis Costs Decision making Delivery of Health Care - economics Disease - economics Econometric models Equity Experiments Health Administration Health care industry Health Economics Health technology assessment Humans Illnesses Intervention Medical care, Cost of Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Models, Economic Netherlands Original Original Research Article Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Preferences Principles Public Health Quality of life Quality of Life Research Quality-Adjusted Life Years Regression analysis Severity of Illness Index Society Studies Willingness to pay |
title | Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T23%3A43%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Valuing%20QALYs%20in%20Relation%20to%20Equity%20Considerations%20Using%20a%20Discrete%20Choice%20Experiment&rft.jtitle=PharmacoEconomics&rft.au=van%20de%20Wetering,%20Liesbet&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1289&rft.epage=1300&rft.pages=1289-1300&rft.issn=1170-7690&rft.eissn=1179-2027&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA714598261%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1757276199&rft_id=info:pmid/26232199&rft_galeid=A714598261&rfr_iscdi=true |