Search

The oft-applied assumption in the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in economic evaluation, that all QALYs are valued equally, has been questioned from the outset. The literature has focused on differential values of a QALY based on equity considerations such as the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the QALYs. However, a key characteristic which may affect the value of a QALY is the type of QALY itself. QALY gains can be generated purely by gains in survival, purely by improvements in quality of life, or by changes in both. Using a discrete choice experiment and a new methodological approach to the derivation of relative weights, we undertake the first direct and systematic exploration of the relative weight accorded different QALY types and do so in the presence of equity considerations; age and severity. Results provide new evidence against the normative starting point that all QALYs are valued equally., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose and Setting: Despite the label "generic" health state utility instruments (HSUIs), empirical evidence shows that different HSUIs generate different estimates of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in the same person. Once a HSUI is used to generate a QALY, the difference between HSUIs is often ignored, and decision-makers act as if 'a QALY is a QALY is a QALY'. Complementing evidence that different generic HSUIs produce different empirical values, this study addresses an important gap by exploring how HSUIs differ, and processes that produced this difference. 15 developers of six generic HSUIs used for estimating the QOL component of QALYs: Quality of Well-Being (QWB) scale; 15 Dimension instrument (15D); Health Utilities Index (HUI); EuroQol EQ-5D; Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D), and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) were interviewed in 2012-2013., Principal Findings: We identified key factors involved in shaping each instrument, and the rationale for similarities and differences across measures. While HSUIs have a common purpose, they are distinctly discrete constructs. Developers recalled complex developmental processes, grounded in unique histories, and these backgrounds help to explain different pathways taken at key decision points during the HSUI development. The basis for the HSUIs was commonly not equivalent conceptually: differently valued concepts and goals drove instrument design and development, according to each HSUI's defined purpose. Developers drew from different sources of knowledge to develop their measure depending on their conceptualisation of HRQoL., Major Conclusions/contribution to Knowledge: We generated and analysed first-hand accounts of the development of the HSUIs to provide insight, beyond face value, about how and why such instruments differ. Findings enhance our understanding of why the six instruments developed the way they did, from the perspective of key developers of those instruments. Importantly, we provide additional, original explanation for why a QALY is not a QALY is not a QALY., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Recently, for many health economics researchers, empirical estimation of the monetary valuation of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has become an important endeavour. Different philosophical and practical approaches to this have emerged. On the one hand, there is a view that, with health-care budgets set centrally, decision-making bodies within the system can iterate, from observation of a series of previous decisions, towards the value of a QALY, thus searching for such a value. Alternatively, and more consistent with the approach taken in other public sectors, individual members of the public are surveyed with the aim of directly eliciting a preference-based - also known as a willingness-to-pay-based (WTP-based) - value of a QALY. While the former is based on supply-side factors and the latter on demand, both in fact suffer from informational deficiencies. Sole reliance on either would necessitate an acceptance or accommodation of chronic inefficiencies in health-care resource allocation. On the basis of this observation, this paper makes the case that in order to approach optimal decision making in health-care provision, a framework incorporating and thus, to a degree, reconciling these two approaches is to be preferred.

This paper presents the first attempt to use a discrete choice experiment to derive distributional weights for quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on characteristics (age and severity) of the beneficiaries. A novel approach using the Hicksian compensating variation is applied. Advantages include derivation of weights for QALYs, not just for life or life years saved, and investigation of the impact of the size of the health gain by allowing the gain to be traded against other characteristics. Results suggest one would generally not weight QALYs, except in a small number of specific cases and in those cases the weights are relatively small. Methodological challenges are highlighted as is a future research agenda., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since the inception of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, there have been questions about the empirical basis for the cost-per-QALY threshold used by NICE and whether QALYs gained by different beneficiaries of health care should be weighted equally. The Social Value of a QALY (SVQ) project, reported in this paper, was commissioned to address these two questions. The results of SVQ were released during a time of considerable debate about the NICE threshold, and authors with differing perspectives have drawn on the SVQ results to support their cases. As these discussions continue, and given the selective use of results by those involved, it is important, therefore, not only to present a summary overview of SVQ, but also for those who conducted the research to contribute to the debate as to its implications for NICE., Discussion: The issue of the threshold was addressed in two ways: first, by combining, via a set of models, the current UK Value of a Prevented Fatality (used in transport policy) with data on fatality age, life expectancy and age-related quality of life; and, second, via a survey designed to test the feasibility of combining respondents' answers to willingness to pay and health state utility questions to arrive at values of a QALY. Modelling resulted in values of £10,000-£70,000 per QALY. Via survey research, most methods of aggregating the data resulted in values of a QALY of £18,000-£40,000, although others resulted in implausibly high values. An additional survey, addressing the issue of weighting QALYs, used two methods, one indicating that QALYs should not be weighted and the other that greater weight could be given to QALYs gained by some groups., Summary: Although we conducted only a feasibility study and a modelling exercise, neither present compelling evidence for moving the NICE threshold up or down. Some preliminary evidence would indicate it could be moved up for some types of QALY and down for others. While many members of the public appear to be open to the possibility of using somewhat different QALY weights for different groups of beneficiaries, we do not yet have any secure evidence base for introducing such a system.

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are being used increasingly in health economics to elicit preferences for products and programs. The results of such experiments have been used to calculate measures of welfare or more specifically, respondents' 'willingness to pay' (WTP) for products and programs and their 'marginal willingness to pay' (MWTP) for the attributes that make up such products and programs. In this note we show that the methods currently used to derive measures of welfare from DCEs in the health economics literature are not consistent with random utility theory (RUT), or with microeconomic welfare theory more generally. The inconsistency with welfare theory is an important limitation on the use of such WTP estimates in cost-benefit analyses. We describe an alternative method of deriving measures of welfare (compensating variation) from DCEs that is consistent with RUT and is derived using welfare theory. We demonstrate its use in an empirical application to derive the WTP for asthma medication and compare it to the results elicited from the method currently used in the health economics literature.

Background: Discrete choice experiments with duration (DCETTO) can be used to estimate utility values for preference-based measures, such as the EQ-5D-5L. For self-completion, the health dimensions are presented in a standard order. However, for valuation, this may result in order effects. Thus, it is important to understand whether health state dimension ordering affects values. The aim of this study was to examine the importance of dimension ordering on DCE values using EQ-5D-5L.Methods: A choice experiment presenting two health profiles and a third immediate death option was developed. A three-arm study was used, with the same 120 choice sets presented online across each arm (n = 360 per arm). Arm 1 presented the standard EQ-5D-5L dimension order, arm 2 randomised order between respondents, and arm 3 randomised within respondents. Conditional logit regression was used to assess model consistency, and scale parameter testing was used to assess model poolability.Results: There were minor inconsistencies across each arm, but the magnitudes of the coefficients produced were generally consistent. Arm 3 produced the largest range of utility values (1 to -0.980). Scale parameter testing suggested that the models did not differ, and the data could be pooled. Follow-up questions did not suggest variation in terms of difficulty.Conclusions: The results suggest that the level of randomisation used in DCE health state valuation studies does not significantly impact values, and dimension order may not be as important as other study design issues. The results support past valuation studies that use the standard order of dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]