Alternatives to the quality‐adjusted life year: How well do they address common criticisms?

Objective: To analyze whether other outcome measures used in health technology assessment (HTA) address the criticisms of quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). Data Sources and Study Setting: HTA methods guidance from 11 US comparator countries (the G10 and Australia) and six value frameworks from US organizations were reviewed to identify health outcome measures currently used to evaluate the benefits of a drug. Study Design: The study involved a documentary analysis of guidelines to identify outcome measures used by the sampled HTA organizations. Similar outcomes were grouped together into outcome types. Each type was analyzed to determine the extent to which it replicates key advantages and responds to criticisms of QALYs extracted from the literature. Extraction Methods: Outcomes were included if guidance from at least one HTA organization identified the outcome as acceptable for HTA. Outcomes measuring or evaluating the benefit, clinical effect, or impact of a drug or health technology was included; methods of calculating costs were excluded. Principal Findings: Seven types of outcome measures were identified falling into three groups: preference‐based, single‐dimension outcomes, and outcomes using non‐health perspectives. Among the seven QALY alternative outcome measures currently used for HTA by the sampled countries, no one outcome measure addresses all the QALY criticisms while retaining the advantageous features of the QALY. Conclusions: Proposals to adopt health technology assessment (HTA) to support value‐based pricing of prescription drugs in the US have faced pushback over the use of the QALY. There is no single "right" outcome measure, and the criticisms of QALYs apply to other outcome measures used to evaluate health. The measures identified have different features and strengths, which may be appropriate for specific decision making goals, but the QALY remains the best option for decision making that requires comparisons of the overall societal value of health gains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]