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
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Correspondence

The value of health

Authors: Wim Groot, Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A major problem in cost-effectiveness studies is where to draw the line between interventions which are cost-effective and those who are not. Lacking a notion about the value of a QALY, all ultimate values to the cost-effectiveness ratio are essentially arbitrary.

Methods

This paper presents a simple empirical model to estimate the compensating income variation of diseases and health problems. The model is estimated using data for the Netherlands.

Results

The compensating income variation is between €20,000 and €90,000. This is higher than most of the ultimate values used by policy-makers to decide whether an intervention is cost-effective. Our figures are roughly similar to those found in studies about the value of a statistical life year.

Conclusion

Estimates on the compensating income variation of diseases and health problems may provide useful information on the maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio of medical interventions than those currently used by policy makers.
Literature
1.
Pearson S, Rawlins M: Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA. 2005, 294: 2618-2622. 10.1001/jama.294.20.2618.CrossRefPubMed
2.
RVZ: Zinnige en duurzame zorg. Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, Den Haag, Raadsadvies. 2006, 06 (06).
3.
Murphy K, Topel R: The economic value of medical research. Journal of Political Economy. 2006, 114: 871-904. 10.1086/508033.CrossRef
4.
Cutler D, Richardson E: Your money and your life: the value of health and what affects it. Frontiers in Health Policy Research. Edited by: Garber A. 1999, Cambridge, MIT Press, 99-132.
5.
Cutler D, Meara E: The technology of birth: is it worth it?. Frontiers in Health Policy Research. Edited by: Garber A. 2000, Cambridge, MIT Press, 3: 33-67.
6.
Cutler D, Huckman R: Technological development and medical productivity: the diffusion of angioplasty in New York state. Journal of Health Economics. 2003, 2: 187-217. 10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00125-X.CrossRef
7.
Groot W, Maassen Brink van den H, Plug E: Money for health: the equivalent variation of cardiovascular diseases. Health Economics. 2004, 13: 859-872. 10.1002/hec.867.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Groot W, Maassen Brink van den H: The compensating income variation of cardiovascular disease. Health Economics. 2006, 15: 1143-1148. 10.1002/hec.1116.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Groot W, Maassen Brink van den H: Optimism, pessimism and the compensating income variation of cardiovascular disease: a two-tiered quality of life stochastic frontier model. Social Science and Medicine. 2007, 65: 1479-1489. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.009.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Krueger A, Schkade D: The reliability of subjective well-being measures. NBER Working Paper. 2007, 13027.
11.
Diener E, Suh E: Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research. 1997, 40: 189-216. 10.1023/A:1006859511756.CrossRef
12.
Diener E, Suh E: National differences in subjective well-being. Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Edited by: Kahneman D, Schwarz N. 1999, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 434-450.
13.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P: How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness?. Economic Journal. 2004, 114: 641-659. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00235.x.CrossRef
14.
Diener E: Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 1984, 95: 542-575. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Veenhoven R: Developments in satisfaction research. Social Indicators Research. 1996, 37: 1-46. 10.1007/BF00300268.CrossRef
16.
Groot W, Maassen Brink van den H: Life-satisfaction and preference drift. Social Indicators Research. 2000, 50: 315-328. 10.1023/A:1007085500976.CrossRef
17.
Groot W, Maassen Brink van den H: A direct method for estimating the compensating income variation for severe headache and migraine. Social Science and Medicine. 2004, 58: 305-314. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00208-9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Layard R, Mayraz G, Nickell S: The marginal utility of income. CEP Discussion paper. 2007, 784.
19.
Pomp M, Brouwer W, Rutten F: QALY-tijd, nieuwe medische technologie, kosteneffectiviteit en richtlijnen. CPB Werkdocument. 2007, 152.
20.
Rawlins M, Culyer A: National institute for clinical excellence and its value judgements. British Medical Journal. 2004, 329: 224-227. 10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky A, Tugwell P: How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1992, 146: 473-481.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Mrozek J, Taylor L: What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis. Journal of Policy analysis and Management. 2002, 21: 253-270. 10.1002/pam.10026.CrossRef
23.
Viscusi W: Fatal Tradeoffs: Public and Private Responsibilities for Risks. 1992, Oxford University Press, Oxford
24.
Viscusi W: The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature. 1993, 31: 1912-1946.
25.
Miller T: Variation between countries in the values of statistical life. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 2000, 34: 169-188.
26.
Moore M, Viscusi W: The quantity adjusted value of life. Economic Inquiry. 1988, 26: 369-388.CrossRef
27.
Groot W: Adaptation and scale of reference bias in self-assessments of quality of life. Journal of Health Economics. 2000, 19: 403-420. 10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00037-5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Metadata
Title
The value of health
Authors
Wim Groot
Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-136

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

BMC Health Services Research 1/2008 Go to the issue

Correspondence

Can modeling of HIV treatment processes improve outcomes? Capitalizing on an operations research approach to the global pandemic

Research article

Prolonged acute mechanical ventilation and hospital bed utilization in 2020 in the United States: implications for budgets, plant and personnel planning

Research article

"It's sort of like being a detective": Understanding how Australian men self-monitor their health prior to seeking help

Research article

Organizational culture, team climate and diabetes care in small office-based practices

Research article

Securing recruitment and obtaining informed consent in minority ethnic groups in the UK

Research article

Appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: identifying the key behaviours of 'best practice'