Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Current Opinion

Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY

Authors: John Brazier, Aki Tsuchiya

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has become a widely used measure of health outcomes for use in informing decision making in health technology assessment. However, there is growing recognition of outcomes beyond health within the health sector and in related sectors such as social care and public health. This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of ten possible approaches covering extending the health-related QALY and using well-being and monetary-based methods, in order to address the problem of using multiple outcome measures to inform resource allocation within and between sectors.
Literature
1.
2.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Wisløff T, et al. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost utility analyses published in 2010. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(4):367–75.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A. Development and preliminary testing of the new five level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernández Alava M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P, Keetharuth AD, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition specific measures of Health Related Quality of Life in NICE decision making. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–165.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Al-Janabi H, Moody A, Clemens S, Coast J. Scoring the ICECAP-A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015. doi:10.​1002/​hec.​3014 (online first).
12.
Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown SL. The Warwick–Edinburgh mental well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(63). ISSN 1477-7525.
13.
14.
15.
Murray CJL, Vos T, Lozano R, Haghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2010;380:2197–223.CrossRef
16.
Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A, Begum N, Shah R, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes form disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2010;380:2129–43.CrossRef
17.
Gafni A, Birch S. Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:767–76.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gray A, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:18–29.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Krabbe PFM, Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multiattribute health-status classification system. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293–301.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system: A “bolt-on” experiment. Med Decis Making. 2013;34:42–53.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Dolan P, Kavetsos G, Tsuchiya A. Sick but satisfied: the impact of health and life satisfaction on choice between health scenarios. J Health Econ. 2013;32(4):708–14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, Solomon J. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
25.
Rowen D, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Hernandez M. Valuing states from multiple measures on the same VAS: A feasibility study. Health Econ. 2011;21(6):715–29.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hernández Alava M, Brazier J, Rowen D, Tsuchiya A. Common scale valuations across different preference-based measures: estimation using rank data. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(6):839–52.CrossRef
27.
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215–34.CrossRef
28.
McTaggart-Cowan H. Elicitation of informed general population health state utility values: a review of the literature. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1153–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Haybron DM. The pursuit of unhappiness: the elusive psychology of Well-being. Oxford: University Press; 2008.
30.
Parfit D. Reasons and persons. Oxford: University Press; 1984.
31.
Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1985.
32.
Nussbaum MC. Sex and Social justice. Oxford: University Press; 1999.
33.
Anand P, Hunter G, Carter I, Dowding K, Guala F, van Hees M. The development of capability indicators. J Hum Dev Capab. 2009;10(1):125–52.CrossRef
34.
Burchardt T. Incomes, functionings and capabilities: the well-being of disabled people in Britain. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); 2005.
35.
Dolan P, Lee H, Peasgood T. Losing sight of the wood for the trees: some issues in describing and valuing health, and another possible approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(11):1035–49.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Mukuria C, Brazier J. Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: a secondary analysis of patient data. Soc Sci Med. 2012;77:97–105.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick–Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
38.
Mukuria C, Rowen D, Peasgood T, Brazier J. An empirical comparison of well-being measures used in the UK. Policy Research Unit in economic evaluation of health and care interventions. Universities of Sheffield and York. EEPRU Research Report 027. Policy paper/document 01/04/2015; 2015.
39.
Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan B, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.CrossRef
40.
Claxton K, Martin S, Soares M, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, Devlin N, Smith PC, Sculpher M. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, CHE research paper 81; 2013.
41.
Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Schulpher M. Appropriate perspectives for Health Care Decisions. CHE discussion paper 54, University of York, York, UK; 2010.
42.
43.
Donaldson C, Mason H, Shackely P. Contingent valuation in health care. In: Jones A, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006.
44.
Boadway RW, Bruce N. Welfare economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1984.
45.
Dixon S, Shackley P. The use of willingness to pay to assess public preferences toward the fortification of foodstuffs with folic acid: results of a pilot study. Health Expect. 2003;6:140–8.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39–52.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699–707.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Robinson A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Bacon P, Baker R, Pennington M, Donaldson C. Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: the ‘chained’ approach. Soc Sci Med. 2013;92:92–104.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Gyrd-Hansen Kjaer, Gyrd-Hansen Dorte, Kjær Trine. Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers. Health Econ. 2012;21(3):222–37.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Kahneman D. Comments on the contingent valuation method. In: Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD, editors. Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Roweman and Allanheld; 1986. p. 18–194.
51.
McFadden D, Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1993.
52.
Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade DA. Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain. 1999;19:203–35.CrossRef
53.
Skedgel CD, Wailoo AJ, Akehurst RL. Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant‐sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences. Health Expect. 2013. doi:10.​1111/​hex.​12098.PubMed
54.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, van Praag BMS. The subjective costs of health losses due to chronic diseases. An alternative model for monetary appraisal. Health Econ. 2002;11(8):709–22.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Powdthavee N, van Den Berg B. ‘Putting different price tags on the same health problem: re-evaluating the well-being valuation. J Health Econ. 2011;30(5):1032.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY
Authors
John Brazier
Aki Tsuchiya
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0194-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study

Systematic Review

The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review

Review Article

The Debrisoft® Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Original Research Article

Hospital Utilization and Universal Health Insurance Coverage: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act

Practical Application

Estimating the Costs of Torture: Challenges and Opportunities