Benefits beyond health in the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year.
Cost-effectiveness analysis
QALY
Societal perspective
Utility of consumption
Willingness to pay
Journal
The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
ISSN: 1618-7601
Titre abrégé: Eur J Health Econ
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101134867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Oct 2024
07 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
24
01
2024
accepted:
05
09
2024
medline:
8
10
2024
pubmed:
8
10
2024
entrez:
7
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Adopting a societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires including all societal costs and benefits even if they fall outside of the realm of health and healthcare. While some benefits are not explicitly included, they might be implicitly included when people value quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in monetary terms. An example is utility of consumption (UoC) which has played a crucial role in discussions regarding the welfare economic underpinnings of CEA. This study investigates whether people consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs monetarily and the influence of inclusion on this value. A Willingness to Pay (WTP) experiment was administered among the general public in which people were asked to assign monetary values to QALYs. Our results show that (stated) UoC increases with quality of life but that instructing people to consider UoC does not impact their monetary valuation of the QALY. Furthermore, many respondents consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs but the impact on the monetary value of a QALY is limited. These findings suggest that these elements are currently not (adequately) captured in CEA. Findings also illustrate that it is difficult to isolate health from non-health benefits and to consistently capture these in CEA. With that, reconciling CEA with welfare economics remains challenging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39375298
doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7
pii: 10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Garber, A.M., Sculpher, M.J.: Chapter eight—cost effectiveness and payment policy. Handb. Health Econ. 2, 471–497 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53592-4.00008-6
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53592-4.00008-6
Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, London (2015)
Claxton, K., Walker, S., Palmer, S., Sculpher, M.: Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions, pp. 1–86. Centre for Health Economics, York (2010) (Online). Available: www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/pubs
Brouwer, W., van Baal, P., van Exel, J., Versteegh, M.: When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making. Eur. J. Health Econ. 20(2), 175–180 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4
doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4
pubmed: 30187251
Wouterse, B., Van Baal, P., Versteegh, M., Brouwer, W.: The value of health in a cost-effectiveness analysis: theory versus practice. Pharmacoeconomics 41, 607–617 (2023)
doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01265-8
pubmed: 37072598
Jönsson, B.: Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2009, 357–359 (2009)
doi: 10.1007/s10198-009-0173-2
Meltzer, D.: Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ. 16(1), 33–64 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00507-3
doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00507-3
pubmed: 10167344
Nyman, J.A.: Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 13(5), 417–427 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.850
doi: 10.1002/hec.850
pubmed: 15127422
de Vries, L.M., van Baal, P.H.M., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Future costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: past, present, future. Pharmacoeconomics 37(2), 119–130 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0749-8
doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0749-8
pubmed: 30474803
Krol, M., Brouwer, W., Rutten, F.: Productivity costs in economic evaluations: past, present, future. Pharmacoeconomics 31(7), 537–549 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0056-3
doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0056-3
pubmed: 23620213
Adarkwah, C.C., Sadoghi, A., Gandjour, A.: Should cost-effectiveness analysis include the cost of consumption activities? An empirical investigation. Value Health 17(7), A370 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.838
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.838
pubmed: 27200788
Bobinac, A., van Exel, N.J.A., Rutten, F.F.H., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year: the individual perspective. Value Health 13(8), 1046–1055 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00781.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00781.x
pubmed: 20825620
Bobinac, A., Van Exel, N.J.A., Rutten, F.F.H., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Valuing Qaly gains by applying a societal perspective. Health Econ. (UK) 22(10), 1272–1281 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2879
doi: 10.1002/hec.2879
Ryen, L., Svensson, M.: The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ. 24(10), 1289–1301 (2015)
doi: 10.1002/hec.3085
pubmed: 25070495
Kouakou, C.R.C., Poder, T.G.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression. Eur. J. Health Econ. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01364-3
doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01364-3
pubmed: 34417905
Finkelstein, A., Luttmer, E.F.P., Notowidigdo, M.: Approaches to estimating the health state dependence of the utility function. SSRN Electron. J. (2011). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1327310
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1327310
Finkelstein, A., Luttmer, E.F.P., Notowidigdo, M.J.: What good is wealth without health? The effect of health on the marginal utility of consumption. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11(Suppl. 1), 221–258 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01101.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01101.x
Gyrd-Hansen, D.: A stated preference approach to assess whether health status impacts on marginal utility of consumption. Health Econ. (UK) 26(10), 1224–1233 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3393
doi: 10.1002/hec.3393
Bleichrodt, H., Quiggin, J.: Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: When is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J. Health Econ. 18(6), 681–708 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00014-4
doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00014-4
pubmed: 10847930
Krol, M., Brouwer, W., Sendi, P.: Productivity costs in health-state valuations: Does explicit instruction matter? Pharmacoeconomics 24(4), 401–414 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00009
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00009
pubmed: 16605285
Green, C., Brazier, J., Deverill, M.: Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmaco Econ. (2000). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200017020-00004
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200017020-00004
Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S.: WTP for a QALY and health states: More money for severer health states? Cost Effect. Resourc. Alloc. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-11-22
doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-22
Layard, R., Nickell, S., Mayraz, G.: The marginal utility of income. J. Public Econ. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.01.007
Sendi, P., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Is silence golden? A test of the incorporation of the effects of ill-health on income and leisure in health state valuations. Health Econ. 14(6), 643–647 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.971
doi: 10.1002/hec.971
pubmed: 15678519