Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2019

Open Access 01-04-2019 | Original Paper

A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Evidence has accumulated documenting loss aversion for monetary and, recently, for health outcomes—meaning that, generally, losses carry more weight than equally sized gains. In the conventional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) models, which comprise utility for quality and length of life, loss aversion is not taken into account. When measuring elements of the QALY model, commonly, the (implicit) assumption is that utility for length and quality of life are independent. First attempts to quantify loss aversion for QALYs typically measured loss aversion in the context of life duration, keeping quality of life constant (or vice versa). However, given that QALYs are multi-attribute utilities, it may be possible that the degree of loss aversion is dependent on, or inseparable from, quality of life and non-constant. We test this assumption using non-parametric methodology to quantify loss aversion, under different levels of quality of life. We measure utility of life duration for four health states within subjects, and present the results of a robustness test of loss aversion within the QALY model. We find loss aversion coefficients to be stable at the aggregate level, albeit with considerable heterogeneity at the individual level. Implications for applied work on prospect theory within health economics are discussed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For an elaborate, formal description of this method, see Abdellaoui and colleagues [12].
 
2
For more information on how utility curvature and loss aversion were determined, see “Box 1”.
 
3
The conventional post hoc power analyses suggested this sample was sufficiently powerful to enable detecting differences with at least small-effect sizes (Cohen’s d < 0.3), assuming α = 0.05 and statistical power at the recommended 80% level [17].
 
4
Wilcoxon tests comparing non-parametric curvature estimates with AUC 0.5, and parametric estimates with \(\alpha =1\), produced no significant results for all β (all p’s > 0.08), with one exception: β1 power utility for gains, p = 0.04.
 
5
Although recent developments [5] suggest that it may be possible to de-bias QALYs at the individual level, several important questions with regard to the reliability of PT parameters and the validity of corrections based on these estimates remain unanswered. We believe that these warrant discussion before corrections based on PT are applied to correct value sets for social tariffs, as is discussed by [30].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRef Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Köbberling, V., Wakker, P.P.: An index of loss aversion. J. Econ. Theory 122(1), 119–131 (2005)CrossRef Köbberling, V., Wakker, P.P.: An index of loss aversion. J. Econ. Theory 122(1), 119–131 (2005)CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)CrossRef Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B., l’Haridon, O.: Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment. J. Health Econ. 32(6), 1057–1065 (2013)CrossRefPubMed Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B., l’Haridon, O.: Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment. J. Health Econ. 32(6), 1057–1065 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Oliver, A.: The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J. Health Econ. 22(4), 659–674 (2003)CrossRefPubMed Oliver, A.: The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J. Health Econ. 22(4), 659–674 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. J. Math. Psychol. 46(3), 315–337 (2002)CrossRef Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. J. Math. Psychol. 46(3), 315–337 (2002)CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B., l’Haridon, O., Pinto, J.L.: An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory. J. Health Econ. 48, 121–134 (2016)CrossRefPubMed Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B., l’Haridon, O., Pinto, J.L.: An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory. J. Health Econ. 48, 121–134 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Stalmeier, P.F., Bezembinder, T.G.: The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities: a matter of framing? Med. Decis. Making 19(4), 435–447 (1999)CrossRefPubMed Stalmeier, P.F., Bezembinder, T.G.: The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities: a matter of framing? Med. Decis. Making 19(4), 435–447 (1999)CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pliskin, J.S., Shepard, D.S., Weinstein, M.C.: Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper. Res. 28(1), 206–224 (1980)CrossRef Pliskin, J.S., Shepard, D.S., Weinstein, M.C.: Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper. Res. 28(1), 206–224 (1980)CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bleichrodt, H., Schmidt, U., Zank, H.: Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag. Sci. 55(5), 863–873 (2009)CrossRef Bleichrodt, H., Schmidt, U., Zank, H.: Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag. Sci. 55(5), 863–873 (2009)CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Abdellaoui, M.: Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Manag. Sci. 46(11), 1497–1512 (2000)CrossRef Abdellaoui, M.: Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Manag. Sci. 46(11), 1497–1512 (2000)CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Miyamoto, J.M., Eraker, S.A.: Parametric models of the utility of survival duration: tests of axioms in a generic utility framework. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 44(2), 166–202 (1989)CrossRef Miyamoto, J.M., Eraker, S.A.: Parametric models of the utility of survival duration: tests of axioms in a generic utility framework. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 44(2), 166–202 (1989)CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia, X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011)CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia, X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011)CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
16.
go back to reference Wakker, P., Deneffe, D.: Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Manag. Sci. 42(8), 1131–1150 (1996)CrossRef Wakker, P., Deneffe, D.: Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Manag. Sci. 42(8), 1131–1150 (1996)CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. In. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988) Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. In. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)
19.
go back to reference Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: The Validity of Qalys Under Non-expected Utility. Econ. J. 115(503), 533–550 (2005)CrossRef Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: The Validity of Qalys Under Non-expected Utility. Econ. J. 115(503), 533–550 (2005)CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.: A test of independence of discounting from quality of life. J. Health Econ. 31(1), 22–34 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.: A test of independence of discounting from quality of life. J. Health Econ. 31(1), 22–34 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Miyamoto, J.M., Eraker, S.A.: A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117(1), 3 (1988)CrossRefPubMed Miyamoto, J.M., Eraker, S.A.: A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117(1), 3 (1988)CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manag. Sci. 46(11), 1485–1496 (2000)CrossRef Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L.: A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manag. Sci. 46(11), 1485–1496 (2000)CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Sutherland, H.J., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Boyd, N.F., Till, J.E.: Attitudes toward quality of survival: the concept of “maximal endurable time”. Med. Decis. Mak. 2(3), 299–309 (1982)CrossRef Sutherland, H.J., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Boyd, N.F., Till, J.E.: Attitudes toward quality of survival: the concept of “maximal endurable time”. Med. Decis. Mak. 2(3), 299–309 (1982)CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Versteegh, M.M., Vermeulen, K.M., Evers, S.M., de Wit, G.A., Prenger, R., Stolk, E.A.: Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 19(4), 343–352 (2016)CrossRef Versteegh, M.M., Vermeulen, K.M., Evers, S.M., de Wit, G.A., Prenger, R., Stolk, E.A.: Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health 19(4), 343–352 (2016)CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, (2015) Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, (2015)
Metadata
Title
A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states
Publication date
01-04-2019
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1008-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

The European Journal of Health Economics 3/2019 Go to the issue