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
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2022

Open Access 01-05-2022

The QALY is ableist: on the unethical implications of health states worse than dead

Author: Paul Schneider

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

A long-standing criticism of the QALY has been that it would discriminate against people in poor health: extending the lives of individuals with underlying health conditions gains fewer QALYs than extending the lives of ‘more healthy’ individuals. Proponents of the QALY counter that this only reflects the general public’s preferences and constitutes an efficient allocation of resources. A pivotal issue that has thus far been overlooked is that there can also be negative QALYs.

Methods and results

Negative QALYs are assigned to the times spent in any health state that is considered to be worse than dead. In a health economic evaluation, extending the lives of people who live in such states reduces the overall population health; it counts as a loss. The problem with this assessment is that the QALY is not based on the perspectives of individual patients—who usually consider their lives to be well worth living—but it reflects the preferences of the general public. While it may be generally legitimate to use those preferences to inform decisions about the allocation of health care resources, when it comes to states worse than dead, the implications are deeply problematic. In this paper, I discuss the (un)ethical aspects of states worse than dead and demonstrate how their use in economic evaluation leads to a systematic underestimation of the value of life-extending treatments.

Conclusion

States worse than dead should thus no longer be used, and a non-negative value should be placed on all human lives.
Literature
1.
MacKillop, E., & Sheard, S. (2018). Quantifying life: understanding the history of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Social Science & Medicine, 211, 359–366.CrossRef
2.
Lipscomb, J., Drummond, M., Fryback, D., Gold, M., & Revicki, D. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18–S26.CrossRef
3.
Harris, J. (1987). QALYfying the value of life. Journal of Medical Ethics, 13, 117–123.CrossRef
4.
Pearson, S. D. (2019). Why the coming debate over the QALY and disability will be different. The Journal of Law, Medicine& Ethics, 47, 304–307.CrossRef
5.
Singer, P., McKie, J., Kuhse, H., & Richardson, J. (1995). Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21, 144–150.CrossRef
6.
Ubel, P., Nord, E., Prades, J., & Richardson, J. (2000). Improving value measurement in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Care, 1, 982–901.
7.
Beckstead, N., & Ord, T. (2015). Bubbles under the wallpaper: Healthcare rationing and discrimination. In Bioethics: An anthology (pp. 406-412). Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
Cubbon, J. (1991). The principle of QALY maximisation as the basis for allocating health care resources. Journal of Medical Ethics, 17, 181–184.CrossRef
9.
Nord, E., Pinto, J. L., Richardson, J., Menzel, P., & Ubel, P. (1999). Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Economics, 8, 25–39.CrossRef
10.
Williams, A. (1987). Brief response: QALYfying the value of life. Journal of Medical Ethics, 13, 123.CrossRef
11.
Klonschinski, A. (2016). The economics of resource allocation in health care: Cost-utility, social value, and fairness. Milton Park: Routledge.
12.
Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin, 96, 5–21.CrossRef
13.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
15.
Attema, A. E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 53–64.CrossRef
16.
Torrance, G. W. (1976). Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 10, 129–136.CrossRef
17.
Brazier, J., Rowen D., Karimi, M., Peasgood, T., Tsuchiya, A., & Ratcliffe, J (2018). Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. The European Journal of Health Economics, 19, 881–891.
18.
Versteegh, M., & Brouwer, W. (2016). Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Social Science & Medicine, 165, 66–74.CrossRef
19.
De Charro, F., Busschbach, J., Essink-Bot, M.-L., van Hout, B., & Krabbe, P. (2005). EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history (pp. 171–179). Dordrecht: Springer.
20.
Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., & Buckingham, K. (2010). Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review. Medical Decision Making, 30, 610–619.CrossRef
21.
McCabe, C., Claxton, K., & Culyer, A. J. (2008). The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. Pharmacoeconomics, 26, 733–744.CrossRef
22.
Bernfort, L., Gerdle, B., Husberg, M., & Levin, L. -Å. (2018). People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: Would they rather be dead? Quality of Life Research, 27, 1827–1833.CrossRef
23.
Chang, H. F. (2000). A liberal theory of social welfare: fairness, utility, and the Pareto principle. The Yale Law Journal, 110, 173–235.CrossRef
24.
Farsides, B., & Dunlop, R. J. (2001). Is there such a thing as a life not worth living? BMJ, 322, 1481–1483.CrossRef
25.
Harris, J. (2003). Consent and end of life decisions. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 10–15.CrossRef
26.
Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: The basics. Value in Health, 12, S5–S9.CrossRef
27.
Kennedy-Martin, M., Slaap, B., Herdman, M., van Reenen, M., Kennedy-Martin, T., Greiner, W., Busschbach, J., & Boye, K. S. (2020). Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, 21, 1245–1257.
28.
Kreimeier, S., Oppe, M., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Cole, A., Devlin, N., Herdman, M., Mulhern, B., Shah, K. K., Stolk, E., Rivero-Arias, O., & Greiner, W. (2018). Valuation of EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, youth version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) health states: The impact of wording and perspective. Value in Health, 21, 1291–1298.
29.
Helgesson, G., Ernstsson, O., Åström, M., & Burström, K. (2020). Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states. Quality of Life Research, 29, 1465–1482.CrossRef
30.
Burström, K., Sun, S., Gerdtham, U.-G., Henriksson, M., Johannesson, M., Levin, L.-Å., & Zethraeus, N. (2014). Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Quality of Life Research, 23, 431–442.CrossRef
31.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.
32.
MVH Group. (1995). The measurement and valuation of health: Final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
33.
Jelsma, J., Hansen, K., De Weerdt, W., De Cock, P., & Kind, P. (2003). How do Zimbabweans value health states? Population Health Metrics, 1, 1–10.CrossRef
34.
Luo, N., Wang, P., Thumboo, J., Lim, Y.-W., & Vrijhoef, H. J. (2014). Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: Modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics, 32, 495–507.CrossRef
35.
University College London Department of Epidemiology and Public Health; National Centre for Social Research (NatCen). (2021). Health Survey for England, 2017. UK Data Service.
36.
Menzel, P., Dolan, P., Richardson, J., & Olsen, J. A. (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 2149–2158.CrossRef
37.
Nord, E. (1995). The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Medical Decision Making, 15, 201–208.CrossRef
38.
Rubin, E. B., Buehler, A. E., & Halpern, S. D. (2016). States worse than death among hospitalized patients with serious illnesses. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176, 1557–1559.CrossRef
39.
Tappenden, P., Hamilton, J., Kaltenthaler, E., Hock, E., Rawdin, A., Mukuria, C., Clowes, M., Simonds, A., & Childs, A. (2018). Nusinersen for treating spinal muscular atrophy: A single technology appraisal. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR).
40.
Scott, C. E. H., MacDonald, D., & Howie, C. (2019). ‘Worse than death’ and waiting for a joint arthroplasty. The Bone & Joint Journal, 101, 941–950.CrossRef
41.
Franklin, D. (2017). Calibrating QALYs to respect equality of persons. Utilitas, 29, 65.CrossRef
42.
Basu, A., Carlson, J., & Veenstra, D. (2020). Health years in total: a new health objective function for cost-effectiveness analysis. Value in Health, 23, 96–103.CrossRef
43.
Anand, P. (1999). QALYs and the integration of claims in health-care rationing. Health Care Analysis, 7, 239–253.CrossRef
44.
Long, S. (2015). Squashed dreams and rare breeds: Ableism and the arbiters of life and death. Disability & Society, 30, 1118–1122.CrossRef
45.
Broome, J. (1978). Trying to value a life. Journal of Public Economics, 9, 91–100.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The QALY is ableist: on the unethical implications of health states worse than dead
Author
Paul Schneider
Publication date
01-05-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03052-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2022

Quality of Life Research 5/2022 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Joint modelling with competing risks of dropout for longitudinal analysis of health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials

OriginalPaper

Does the global activity limitation indicator measure participation restriction? Data from the European Health and Social Integration Survey in Spain

OriginalPaper

The effects of golimumab on work productivity and quality of life among work-active axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis patients treated in the routine care in Greece: the ‘GO-UP’ study

OriginalPaper

Factors associated with impaired quality of life three months after being diagnosed with COVID-19

OriginalPaper

Measuring health-related quality of life in young children with physical illness: psychometric properties of the parent-reported KIDSCREEN-27

OriginalPaper

Psychopathology and health-related quality of life as patient-reported treatment outcomes: evaluation of concordance between the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) in psychiatric outpatients