Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
The European Journal of Health Economics
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2017

28.07.2016 | Original Paper

Evaluating the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 6/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Patients and non-patients tend to attach different utility values to the state of suffering from specific illnesses. This observation naturally leads to the question whose utility values should be used as the basis in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Intuitively, one would presume that patients are better informed about the consequences of their illness, and public authorities should, therefore, use the patients’ utility values in CEA. Contrary to this presumption, it has been argued that society at large should determine which values are to be used and not the patients because, in the end, it is societal resources that are to be allocated. Against this background, we use data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that was completed by patients of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-patients to explore the discrepancies between the two groups' utility estimates for typical consequences of RA. Our results indicate that both groups attach remarkably similar part-worth utilities to the symptoms pain, fatigue, and functional limitations. However, non-patients significantly undervalue the ability to work when compared to patients.
Fußnoten
1
Note that this is a rather conservative estimation. Fuchs et al. [13] report an estimated prevalence of lifetime RA of 2.5 % of all 18–79-year-olds in Germany.
 
2
Note that we employ a generic DCE. That means that the alternatives in our choice sets are not labeled, at least not in a meaningful way.
 
3
We include the lower bounds of the income categories in the regression. The results are, however, robust with regard to significance when alternatively including the category means or the upper bounds and excluding responses from the highest and boundless income category.
 
4
We include the category “3 or more persons” as 3 in the regression analysis.
 
5
Note that a positive sign means that the according level increases choice probability and the respondents were asked to choose the worse of the two alternatives in every choice set.
 
6
Note that this calculation is critically dependent on our assumption regarding the structure of the indirect utility function \(V_{in}\) and our assumption about the absence of significant interaction effects among the mentioned attributes.
 
7
Note that one could of course also analyze the discrepancies between patients and non-patients with regard to the valuation of disease symptoms or consequences by employing TTO and SG.
 
Literatur
1.
Arns, P.G., Linney, J.A.: Work, self, and life satisfaction for persons with severe and persistent mental disorders. Psychiatr. Rehabil. J. 17(2), 63–79 (1993)
2.
Boyd, N.F., Sutherland, H.J., Heasman, K.Z., Trichtler, D.L., Cummings, B.J.: Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med. Decis. Mak. 10(1), 58–67 (1990)CrossRef
3.
Brazier, J.: Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 26(9), 769–779 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
4.
Burton, W., Morrison, A., Maclean, R., Ruderman, E.: Systematic review of studies of productivity loss due to rheumatoid arthritis. Occup. Med. 56(1), 18–27 (2006)CrossRef
5.
Campbell, R.C., Batley, M., Hammond, A., Ibrahim, F., Kingsley, G., Scott, D.L.: The impact of disease activity, pain, disability and treatments on fatigue in established rheumatoid arthritis. Clin. Rheumatol. 31(4), 717–722 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
6.
Carmona, L., Cross, M., Williams, B., Lassere, M., March, L.: Rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 24(6), 733–745 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
7.
Covic, T., Adamson, B., Hough, M.: The impact of passive coping on rheumatoid arthritis pain. Rheumatology 39(9), 1027–1030 (2000)CrossRefPubMed
8.
de Wit, G.A., Busschbach, J.J., de Charro, F.T.: Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ. 9(2), 109–126 (2000)CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dolan, P., Kahneman, D.: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118(525), 215–234 (2008)CrossRef
10.
Emery, D., Barron, F.: Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: an evaluation of diagnostic efficacy. Psychometrika 44(2), 195–210 (1979)CrossRef
11.
Fifield, J., Reisine, S.T., Grady, K.: Work disability and the experience of pain and depression in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc. Sci. Med. 33(5), 579–585 (1991)CrossRefPubMed
12.
Fox, J.T.: Firm-size wage gaps, job responsibility and hierarchical matching. J. Labor Econ. 27(1), 83–126 (2009)CrossRef
13.
Fuchs, J., Rabenberg, M., Scheidt-Nave, C.: Prevalence of selected musculoskeletal conditions in germany—results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt 56(5), 668–677 (2013)
14.
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.: Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York (1999)
15.
Hauber, A., Arden, N., Mohamed, A., Johnson, F., Peloso, P., Watson, D., Mavros, P., Gammaitoni, A., Sen, S., Taylor, S.: A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 21(2), 289–297 (2013)CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hays, R.D., Vickrey, B.G., Hermann, B.P., Perrine, K., Cramer, J., Meador, K., Spritzer, K., Devinsky, O.: Agreement between self reports and proxy reports of quality of life in epilepsy patients. Qual. Life Res. 4(2), 159–168 (1995)CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)
18.
Johnson, F.R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D.A., Bresnahan, B., Kannien, B., Bridges, J.F.P.: Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 16(1), 3–13 (2013)CrossRef
19.
Kassenboehmer, S.C., Haisken-DeNew, J.P.: You’re fired! the causal negative effect of entry unemployment on life satisfaction. Econ. J. 119(536), 448–462 (2009)CrossRef
20.
Kazis, L.E., Meenan, R.F., Anderson, J.J.: Pain in the rheumatic diseases. Investigation of a key health status component. Arthritis Rheum. 26(8), 1017–1022 (1983)CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kirchhoff, T., Ruof, J., Mittendorf, T., Rihl, M., Bernateck, M., Mau, W., Zeidler, H., Schmidt, R.E., Merkesdal, S.: Cost of illness in rheumatoid arthritis in germany in 1997–98 and 2002: cost drivers and cost savings. Rheumatology 50(4), 756–761 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kirwan, J.R., Hewlett, S.: Patient perspective: reasons and methods for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. J. Rheumatol. 34(5), 1171–1173 (2007)PubMed
23.
Kløjgaard, M.E., Bech, M., Søgaard, R.: Designing a stated choice experiment: the value of a qualitative process. J. Choice Model. 5(2), 1–18 (2011)CrossRef
24.
Krokavcova, M., Nagyoa, I., Rosenberger, J., Gavelova, M., Berrie, M., Gdovinova, Z., Groothoff, J.W., van Dijk, J.P.: Employment status and perceived health status in younger and older people with multiple sclerosis. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 35(1), 40–47 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Deleting irrational responses from discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 15(8), 797–811 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
27.
Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Sutherland, H.J., Tibishirani, R., Ciampi, A., Till, J.E., Boyd, N.F.: Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med. Care 22(6), 543–552 (1984)CrossRefPubMed
28.
Louviere, J.: Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 22(1), 93–119 (1988)
29.
Meenan, R.F., Gertman, P.M., Mason, J.H.: Measuring health status in arthritis—the arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis Rheum. 23(2), 146–152 (1980)CrossRefPubMed
30.
Meenan, R.F., Mason, J.H., Anderson, J.J., Guccione, A.A., Kazis, L.E.: AIMS2—the content and properties of a revised and expanded arthritis impact measurement scales health status questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 35(1), 1–10 (1992)CrossRefPubMed
31.
Merkesdal, S., Ruof, J., Schöfski, O., Bernitt, K., Zeidler, H., Mau, W.: Indirect medical costs in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 44(3), 528–534 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
32.
Miguel, F.S., Ryan, M., Amaya-Amaya, M.: Irrational stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ. 14(3), 307–322 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
33.
Minnock, P., Fitzgerald, O., Bresnihan, B.: Women with established rheumatoid arthritis perceive pain as the predominant impairment of health status. Rheumatology 42(8), 995–1000 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
34.
Novella, J.L., Jochum, C., Jolly, D., Morrone, I., Ankri, J., Bureau, F., Blanchard, F.: Agreement between patients’ and proxies’ reports of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Qual. Life Res. 10(5), 443–452 (2001)CrossRefPubMed
35.
Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A.M.: Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state ultilities. Value Health 13(2), 306–309 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
36.
Permain, D., Swanson, J., Kroes, E., Bradley, M.: Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. Steer Davies Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, London (1991)
37.
Pyne, J.M., Fortney, J.C., Tripathi, S., Feeny, D., Ubel, P., Brazier, J.: How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population. Health Serv. Res. 44(4), 1406–1423 (2009)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Ratcliffe, J., Buxton, M., McGarry, T., Sheldon, R., Chancellor, J.: Patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 43(3), 337–345 (2004)CrossRefPubMed
39.
Rosemann, T., Körner, T., Wensing, M., Schneider, A., Szecsenyi, J.: Evaluation and cultural adaptation of a German version of the AIMS2-SF questionnaire (German AIMS2-SF). Rheumatology 44(9), 1190–1195 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
40.
Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003)PubMed
41.
Skjoldborg, U.S., Lauridsen, J., Junker, P.: Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health 12(1), 153–158 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
42.
Street, D.J., Burgess, L., Louviere, J.J.: Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22(4), 459–470 (2005)CrossRef
43.
44.
Ubel, P.A., Loewenstein, G., Hershey, J., Baron, J., Mohr, T., Asch, D.A., Jepson, C.: Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion? Med. Decis. Mak. 21(3), 190–199 (2001)CrossRef
45.
Ubel, P.A., Loewenstein, G., Jepson, C.: Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepanices between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual. Life Res. 12(6), 599–607 (2003)CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ubel, P.A., Richardson, J., Menzel, P.: Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 9(2), 127–136 (2000)CrossRefPubMed
47.
Winkelmann, L., Winkelmann, R.: Why are the unemployed so unhappy? Evidence from panel data. Economica 65(257), 1–15 (1998)CrossRef
48.
Wolfe, F., Hawley, D.J., Wilson, K.: The prevalence and meaning of fatigue in rheumatic disease. J. Rheumatol. 23(8), 1407–1417 (1996)PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Evaluating the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis
Publikationsdatum
28.07.2016
Erschienen in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0818-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains

Original Paper

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients

Original Paper

The costs of hazardous alcohol consumption in Germany

Original Paper

Waist circumference, body mass index, and employment outcomes

Original Paper

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

Editorial

The enigma of value: in search of affordable and accessible health care