Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2005

01-12-2005 | Original Research Article

Determining priority for liver transplantation

A comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences

Authors: Julie Ratcliffe, Martin Buxton, Tracey Young, Louise Longworth

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

A comparison of the implications of the application of the principles of equity and efficiency as two desirable but competing attributes of the organ allocation system. Efficiency is defined in economic terms as the standard cost per QALY model and equity considerations are included in a model based on public preferences generated from a discrete choice experiment in determining priority for donor liver graft allocation.

Methods

A survey of the general public (n = 303) using a discrete choice experiment was undertaken. The results enabled estimation of the relative weights attached to several key factors which might be used to prioritise patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation. These weights were then used to develop a patient-specific index (PSI) for all patients diagnosed with one of three main chronic liver diseases who had received a liver transplant during an 18-month period at all Department of Health designated liver transplant centres in England and Wales (n = 207). The cost per QALY model comprised net total costs from assessment to 27 months following assessment as the numerator of the ratio. Net survival over the same time period, adjusted for HR-QOL using population values for the EQ-5D descriptive system, formed the denominator.

Results

Priority for liver transplantation differed markedly according to whether patients were ranked according to efficiency (net cost per QALY) or equity considerations (PSI) and the differences in ranks were found to be statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study emphasises that the priorities of the general public may not accord with those arising from a pure efficiency objective and quantifies the extent of the efficiency loss in terms of lost QALYs and increased net programme costs associated with the incorporation of equity concerns as reflected in public preferences for the allocation of donor livers for transplantation.
Footnotes
1
1A choice between the random effects linear regression model and a fixed effects model was made using the Hausman test, which indicated that the random effects model was superior (chi-squared 7.3, p chi-squared 0.1994). The data were also analysed using a tobit regression model. The results of this analysis were very similar to those of the random effects model.
 
Literature
2.
go back to reference 2001 annual report of the US Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1991–2000. Rockville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of Special Programs, Division of Transplantation; Richmond (VA): United Network for Organ Sharing; Ann Arbor (MI): University Renal Research and Education Association, 2001 2001 annual report of the US Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1991–2000. Rockville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of Special Programs, Division of Transplantation; Richmond (VA): United Network for Organ Sharing; Ann Arbor (MI): University Renal Research and Education Association, 2001
3.
go back to reference National Health Service (NHS) UK Transplant. Transplant activity in the UK 2002–2003. Stoke Gifford: UK Transplant, 2003 National Health Service (NHS) UK Transplant. Transplant activity in the UK 2002–2003. Stoke Gifford: UK Transplant, 2003
4.
go back to reference Ghent CN. Overall evaluation: screening and assessment of risk factors. Liver Transpl Surg 1996; 2: 2–8PubMed Ghent CN. Overall evaluation: screening and assessment of risk factors. Liver Transpl Surg 1996; 2: 2–8PubMed
5.
go back to reference Neuberger J, Adams D, McMaster P, et al. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ 1998; 317: 172–5PubMedCrossRef Neuberger J, Adams D, McMaster P, et al. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ 1998; 317: 172–5PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ubel P, Loewenstein G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy 1995; 34: 145–51PubMedCrossRef Ubel P, Loewenstein G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy 1995; 34: 145–51PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ubel P, Loewenstein G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 1049–55PubMedCrossRef Ubel P, Loewenstein G. Distributing scarce livers: the moral reasoning of the general public. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 1049–55PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Haustein SV, Sellers MT. Factors associated with (un)willingness to be an organ donor: importance of public exposure and knowledge. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 193–200PubMedCrossRef Haustein SV, Sellers MT. Factors associated with (un)willingness to be an organ donor: importance of public exposure and knowledge. Clin Transplant 2004; 18: 193–200PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137–48PubMedCrossRef Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137–48PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Longworth L, Young T, Buxton M, et al. Mid term cost effectiveness of the liver transplantation programme of England and Wales for three liver disease groups. Liver Transpl 2003; 9: 1295–307PubMedCrossRef Longworth L, Young T, Buxton M, et al. Mid term cost effectiveness of the liver transplantation programme of England and Wales for three liver disease groups. Liver Transpl 2003; 9: 1295–307PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
go back to reference Young T, Longworth L, Ratcliffe J. Survival on the waiting list, post transplant and estimated survival in the absence of transplantation: final report to the Department of Health. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 2000 Young T, Longworth L, Ratcliffe J. Survival on the waiting list, post transplant and estimated survival in the absence of transplantation: final report to the Department of Health. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 2000
14.
go back to reference StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 8.0. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation, 2003 StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 8.0. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation, 2003
15.
go back to reference Great Britain HM Treasury. The green book appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 2003 Great Britain HM Treasury. The green book appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 2003
16.
go back to reference Neuberger J, Ubel PA. Finding a place for public preferences in liver allocation decisions. Transplantation 2000; 70: 1411–3PubMedCrossRef Neuberger J, Ubel PA. Finding a place for public preferences in liver allocation decisions. Transplantation 2000; 70: 1411–3PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Neuberger J, Lucey M. Liver transplantation practice and management. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1994 Neuberger J, Lucey M. Liver transplantation practice and management. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1994
18.
go back to reference Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916–9PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916–9PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Determining priority for liver transplantation
A comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences
Authors
Julie Ratcliffe
Martin Buxton
Tracey Young
Louise Longworth
Publication date
01-12-2005
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2005
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504040-00007

Other articles of this Issue 4/2005

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2005 Go to the issue

Review Article

What value health?

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgement