Literature DB >> 32592923

Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health.

Darius N Lakdawalla1, Charles E Phelps2.   

Abstract

Standard cost-effectiveness models compare incremental cost increases to incremental average gains in health, commonly expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Our research generalizes earlier models in several ways. We introduce risk aversion in Quality of Life (QoL), which leads to "willingness-to-pay" thresholds that rise with illness severity, potentially by an order of magnitude. Unlike traditional CEA analyses, which discriminate against persons with disabilities, our analysis implies that the marginal value of improving QoL rises for disabled individuals. Our model can also value the uncertain benefits of medical interventions by employing well-established analytic methods from finance. Finally, we show that traditional QALYs no longer serve as a single index of health, when consumers are risk-averse. To address this problem, we derive a generalized single-index of health outcomes-the Generalized Risk-Adjusted QALY (GRA-QALY). Earlier models of CEA that abstract from risk-aversion nest as special cases of our more general model.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness; Health technology assessment; Quality-Adjusted life-year; Risk and uncertainty

Year:  2020        PMID: 32592923      PMCID: PMC7402585          DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Econ        ISSN: 0167-6296            Impact factor:   3.883


  26 in total

1.  Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  A M Garber; C E Phelps
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Colin Green; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Defining Elements of Value in Health Care-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [3].

Authors:  Darius N Lakdawalla; Jalpa A Doshi; Louis P Garrison; Charles E Phelps; Anirban Basu; Patricia M Danzon
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 5.725

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

Authors:  E Nord; J L Pinto; J Richardson; P Menzel; P Ubel
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 5.  A comprehensive review of predictive and prognostic composite factors implicated in the heterogeneity of treatment response and outcome across disease areas.

Authors:  C I Alatorre; G C Carter; C Chen; C Villarivera; V Zarotsky; R A Cantrell; I Goetz; R Paczkowski; D Buesching
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies.

Authors:  Darius N Lakdawalla; John A Romley; Yuri Sanchez; J Ross Maclean; John R Penrod; Tomas Philipson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain.

Authors:  Warren G Linley; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues.

Authors:  E Nord; J Richardson; A Street; H Kuhse; P Singer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Augmenting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Uncertainty: The Implications for Value Assessment-Rationale and Empirical Support.

Authors:  Louis P Garrison; Bernarda Zamora; Meng Li; Adrian Towse
Journal:  J Manag Care Spec Pharm       Date:  2020-04

10.  Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes--a methodological case study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Miqdad Asaria; Susan Griffin; Richard Cookson; Sophie Whyte; Paul Tappenden
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  7 in total

1.  Assessing potential cures: are there distinctive elements of value beyond health gain?

Authors:  Saskia Hendriks; Steven D Pearson
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 1.744

2.  Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Drug Treatment for Alzheimer Disease in a Simulation Model That Includes Caregiver and Societal Factors.

Authors:  Kouta Ito; Rick Chapman; Steven D Pearson; Ali Tafazzoli; Kristine Yaffe; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-10-01

3.  A guide to extending and implementing generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE).

Authors:  Darius N Lakdawalla; Charles E Phelps
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-09-08

Review 4.  Assessing the value of orphan drugs using conventional cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it fit for purpose?

Authors:  Maarten J Postma; Declan Noone; Mark H Rozenbaum; John A Carter; Marc F Botteman; Elisabeth Fenwick; Louis P Garrison
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 4.123

5.  Cost‑Effectiveness Risk‑Aversion Curves: Comparison of Risk-Adjusted Performance Measures and Expected-Utility Approaches.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 4.558

6.  Multivariate risk preferences in the quality-adjusted life year model.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Jona J Frasch; Olivier L'Haridon
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.395

7.  Projecting the long-term societal value of a disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer's disease in the United States.

Authors:  Maria J Prados; Ying Liu; Hankyung Jun; Jenny Lam; Soeren Mattke
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 16.655

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.