Literature DB >> 23244815

Inquiry into the relationship between equity weights and the value of the QALY.

Ana Bobinac1, N Job A van Exel, Frans F H Rutten, Werner B F Brouwer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A commonly held view of the decision rule in economic evaluations in health care is that the final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio needs to be judged against some threshold, which is equal for all quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. This reflects the assumption that "a QALY is a QALY" no matter who receives it, or the equity notion that all QALY gains are equally valuable, regardless of the context in which they are realized. If such an assumption does not adequately reflect the distributional concerns in society, however, different thresholds could be used for different QALY gains, whose relative values can be seen as "equity weights." AIM: Our aim was to explore the relationship between equity or distributional concerns and the social value of QALYs within the health economics literature. In light of the empirical interest in equity-related concerns as well as the nature and height of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, this study investigates the "common ground" between the two streams of literature and considers how the empirical literature estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold treats existing distributional considerations.
Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23244815     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Authors:  E J van de Wetering; N J A van Exel; J M Rose; R J Hoefman; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-06

3.  Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss.

Authors:  Ulrikke J V Hernæs; Kjell A Johansson; Trygve Ottersen; Ole F Norheim
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making.

Authors:  Werner Brouwer; Pieter van Baal; Job van Exel; Matthijs Versteegh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-03

5.  Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists.

Authors:  C Camps-Herrero; L Paz-Ares; M Codes; R López-López; A Antón-Torres; P Gascón-Vilaplana; V Guillem-Porta; A Carrato; J J Cruz-Hernández; C Caballero-Díaz; A Blasco-Cordellat; J A Moreno-Nogueira; E Díaz-Rubio
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 3.405

6.  Hidden costs: The ethics of cost-effectiveness analyses for health interventions in resource-limited settings.

Authors:  Sarah E Rutstein; Joan T Price; Nora E Rosenberg; Stuart M Rennie; Andrea K Biddle; William C Miller
Journal:  Glob Public Health       Date:  2016-05-04

Review 7.  How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks.

Authors:  Alessandra Blonda; Yvonne Denier; Isabelle Huys; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 5.810

8.  Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences.

Authors:  Anita Lal; Mohammad Siahpush; Marjory Moodie; Anna Peeters; Robert Carter
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2018-03

Review 9.  On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Cameron; Jasper Ubels; Fredrik Norström
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 2.640

10.  Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Liesbet van de Wetering; Job van Exel; Ana Bobinac; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.