Literature DB >> 10082141

Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes.

E Nord1, J L Pinto, J Richardson, P Menzel, P Ubel.   

Abstract

The paper addresses some limitations of the QALY approach and outlines a valuation procedure that may overcome these limitations. In particular, we focus on the following issues: the distinction between assessing individual utility and assessing societal value of health care; the need to incorporate concerns for severity of illness as an independent factor in a numerical model of societal valuations of health outcomes; similarly, the need to incorporate reluctance to discriminate against patients that happen to have lesser potentials for health than others; and finally, the need to combine measurements of health-related quality of life obtained from actual patients (or former patients) with measurements of distributive preferences in the general population when estimating societal value. We show how equity weights may serve to incorporate concerns for severity and potentials for health in QALY calculations. We also suggest that for chronically ill or disabled people a life year gained should count as one and no less than one as long as the year is considered preferable to being dead by the person concerned. We call our approach 'cost-value analysis'.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10082141     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199902)8:1<25::aid-hec398>3.0.co;2-h

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  73 in total

Review 1.  The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years.

Authors:  T Arnesen; E Nord
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-27

Review 2.  Benefit valuation in economic evaluation of cancer therapies. A systematic review of the published literature.

Authors:  J Brown; M Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project.

Authors:  J E Zwart-van Rijkom; H G Leufkens; J J Busschbach; A W Broekmans; F F Rutten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Improving the sensitivity of the time trade-off method: results of an experiment using chained TTO questions.

Authors:  G C Morrison; A Neilson; M Malek
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2002-02

Review 5.  On individual preferences and aggregation in economic evaluation in healthcare.

Authors:  B Liljas; B Lindgren
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation.

Authors:  S Petrou; J Wolstenholme
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service.

Authors:  Jeff R J Richardson; John McKie; Stuart J Peacock; Angelo Iezzi
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-05-09

8.  Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health.

Authors:  Darius N Lakdawalla; Charles E Phelps
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2020-06-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 9.  Are physicians willing to ration health care? Conflicting findings in a systematic review of survey research.

Authors:  Daniel Strech; Govind Persad; Georg Marckmann; Marion Danis
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 2.980

10.  Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; George Loewenstein; Christopher Jepson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.