Literature DB >> 15896094

Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues.

Dorte Gyrd-Hansen1.   

Abstract

What is a QALY worth in monetary units? This paper presents the main arguments in the literature regarding the obstacles involved in establishing one unique willingness to pay (WTP) estimate for the value of a QALY. To directly translate QALYs into monetary units, and in this manner translate existing and forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to cost-benefit analyses (CBA), it is necessary that one unique WTP per QALY can be established irrespective of context-specific characteristics such as severity of illness, magnitude of health gain, patient characteristics, etc. Because CEA and CBA are two methods of economic evaluation that are based on two very different normative perceptions of the role of health versus other goods in society, the task of performing a linear translation from QALYs to WTP is theoretically unattainable. CBA is based on the welfarist perception that the welfare associated with health is measured by way of individual preferences for health outcomes relative to other goods in society. In contrast, CEA is based on the extra-welfarist notion, which focuses on maximising health and not welfare, and suppresses any variation across income/social groups in utility derived from improvements in health. Another obstacle to one unique WTP per QALY value is that marginal utility of income is non-constant, and a function of income level and possibly health status. When marginal utility of income varies across individuals as well as contexts, measuring the value of health in monetary units may result in valuations of health increments that are very different from valuations retrieved had another unit of measure been applied. In conclusion, from a theoretical point of view, establishing one unique WTP cannot be attained. Applying one sole WTP per QALY value will entail overriding individual preferences such as diminishing marginal utility of health and potential differences in the value of incremental health across population groups. However, one problem that can, and should, be overcome when seeking to establish a monetary value for a QALY is the problem of variance in the marginal utility of income. The importance of applying the appropriate perspective when formulating WTP questions to ensure that the marginal utility of income of the respondents equals that of the financiers of the costs invested to produce the health gains should not be overlooked.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15896094     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523050-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  34 in total

1.  Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination?

Authors:  J M Abellan-Perpiñan; J L Pinto-Prades
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation.

Authors:  J Ratcliffe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  A note on prevention versus cure.

Authors:  M Johannesson; P O Johansson
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Willingness to pay for a QALY.

Authors:  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health.

Authors:  Paul Dolan; Jan Abel Olsen; Paul Menzel; Jeff Richardson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study.

Authors:  R Cookson; P Dolan
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 7.  Health status index models for use in resource allocation decisions. A critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 8.  Discounting life-years: whither time preference?

Authors:  D Gyrd-Hansen; J Søgaard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments.

Authors:  D G Fryback; W F Lawrence
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  T O Tengs; M E Adams; J S Pliskin; D G Safran; J E Siegel; M C Weinstein; J D Graham
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.000

View more
  27 in total

1.  Renal mass biopsy to guide treatment decisions for small incidental renal tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Debra A Gervais; Rebecca I Hartman; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Adam S Feldman; Peter R Mueller; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Should the Lambda (λ) Remain Silent?

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Jonathan Karnon; Mark Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Health related quality of life outcome instruments.

Authors:  Gunnar Németh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  A 'league table' of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions: a hard pill to swallow?

Authors:  Tracey H Sach; Richard D Smith; David K Whynes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Methods of economic evaluation for the German statutory healthcare system.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The value of a QALY: individual willingness to pay for health gains under risk.

Authors:  Ana Bobinac; Job van Exel; Frans F H Rutten; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost-effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay.

Authors:  S Olofsson; U-G Gerdtham; L Hultkrantz; U Persson
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-08-12

9.  Radiofrequency ablation versus nephron-sparing surgery for small unilateral renal cell carcinoma: cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Debra A Gervais; Peter R Mueller; Chin Hur; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-05-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Willingness to pay for a QALY based on community member and patient preferences for temporary health states associated with herpes zoster.

Authors:  Tracy A Lieu; G Thomas Ray; Ismael R Ortega-Sanchez; Ken Kleinman; Donna Rusinak; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.