Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2005

01.05.2005 | Current Opinion

Willingness to pay for a QALY

Theoretical and methodological issues

verfasst von: Dr Dorte Gyrd-Hansen

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 5/2005

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

What is a QALY worth in monetary units? This paper presents the main arguments in the literature regarding the obstacles involved in establishing one unique willingness to pay (WTP) estimate for the value of a QALY.
To directly translate QALYs into monetary units, and in this manner translate existing and forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to cost-benefit analyses (CBA), it is necessary that one unique WTP per QALY can be established irrespective of context-specific characteristics such as severity of illness, magnitude of health gain, patient characteristics, etc. Because CEA and CBA are two methods of economic evaluation that are based on two very different normative perceptions of the role of health versus other goods in society, the task of performing a linear translation from QALYs to WTP is theoretically unattainable.
CBA is based on the welfarist perception that the welfare associated with health is measured by way of individual preferences for health outcomes relative to other goods in society. In contrast, CEA is based on the extra-welfarist notion, which focuses on maximising health and not welfare, and suppresses any variation across income/social groups in utility derived from improvements in health. Another obstacle to one unique WTP per QALY value is that marginal utility of income is non-constant, and a function of income level and possibly health status. When marginal utility of income varies across individuals as well as contexts, measuring the value of health in monetary units may result in valuations of health increments that are very different from valuations retrieved had another unit of measure been applied.
In conclusion, from a theoretical point of view, establishing one unique WTP cannot be attained. Applying one sole WTP per QALY value will entail overriding individual preferences such as diminishing marginal utility of health and potential differences in the value of incremental health across population groups. However, one problem that can, and should, be overcome when seeking to establish a monetary value for a QALY is the problem of variance in the marginal utility of income. The importance of applying the appropriate perspective when formulating WTP questions to ensure that the marginal utility of income of the respondents equals that of the financiers of the costs invested to produce the health gains should not be overlooked.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Johannesson M. The relationship between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost benefit analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 483–9PubMedCrossRef Johannesson M. The relationship between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost benefit analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 483–9PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7PubMedCrossRef Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C, et al. Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence. Health Econ 1999; 8: 171–8PubMedCrossRef Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C, et al. Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence. Health Econ 1999; 8: 171–8PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hirth RA, Chemew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Health Econ 2000; 20: 332–42 Hirth RA, Chemew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Health Econ 2000; 20: 332–42
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMed Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–9PubMedCrossRef George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–9PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J, editors. Handbook of Health Economics. Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000: 1724–62 Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J, editors. Handbook of Health Economics. Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000: 1724–62
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem of defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 276–84PubMedCrossRef Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem of defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 276–84PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Edlin R. Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis? J Health Econ 2002; 21: 827–43PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Edlin R. Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis? J Health Econ 2002; 21: 827–43PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Pratt JW, Zeckhauser RJ. Willingness to pay and the distribution of risk and death. J Polit Econ 1996; 4: 747–63CrossRef Pratt JW, Zeckhauser RJ. Willingness to pay and the distribution of risk and death. J Polit Econ 1996; 4: 747–63CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Johannesson and O’Conor. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241–53PubMedCrossRef Johannesson and O’Conor. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241–53PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Brekke KA. The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis. J Public Econ 1997; 64: 117–23CrossRef Brekke KA. The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis. J Public Econ 1997; 64: 117–23CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Gyrd-Hansen D, Søgaard J. Discounting life-years: whither time preference?. Health Econ 1998; 7: 121–7PubMedCrossRef Gyrd-Hansen D, Søgaard J. Discounting life-years: whither time preference?. Health Econ 1998; 7: 121–7PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 55–70PubMedCrossRef Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 55–70PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ 2003; 12: 545–51PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ 2003; 12: 545–51PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care 1994; 32 (7): 686–99PubMedCrossRef Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care 1994; 32 (7): 686–99PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2002; 10: 39–52CrossRef Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2002; 10: 39–52CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000; 51: 19–30PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000; 51: 19–30PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a groups discussion study. Health Policy 1999; 49: 63–74PubMedCrossRef Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a groups discussion study. Health Policy 1999; 49: 63–74PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ 1999; 8: 701–7PubMedCrossRef Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ 1999; 8: 701–7PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7: 307–12PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7: 307–12PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Nord E. Health state index models for use in resource allocation decisions: a critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (1): 31–44PubMedCrossRef Nord E. Health state index models for use in resource allocation decisions: a critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (1): 31–44PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ 2000; 9: 611–21PubMedCrossRef Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ 2000; 9: 611–21PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryynanen OP, Myllykangan M, Kinnunen J, et al. Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 1529–39PubMedCrossRef Ryynanen OP, Myllykangan M, Kinnunen J, et al. Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 1529–39PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 267–76PubMedCrossRef Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 267–76PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Chamy MC, Lewis PA, Farrow SC. Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 1331–8CrossRef Chamy MC, Lewis PA, Farrow SC. Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 1331–8CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat 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
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Johannesson M, Johannesson PO. A note on the prevention versus cure. Health Policy 1997; 41: 181–7PubMedCrossRef Johannesson M, Johannesson PO. A note on the prevention versus cure. Health Policy 1997; 41: 181–7PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, et al. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon’s cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 108–16PubMedCrossRef Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, et al. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon’s cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 108–16PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Ubel PA. How stable are peoples’ preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 895–903PubMedCrossRef Ubel PA. How stable are peoples’ preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 895–903PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas KK. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 463–78CrossRef Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas KK. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 463–78CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15 (3): 201–8CrossRef Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15 (3): 201–8CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Ubel PA, Baron J, Nash B, et al. Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation ‘all or nothing’? Med Care 2000; 38: 366–73PubMedCrossRef Ubel PA, Baron J, Nash B, et al. Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation ‘all or nothing’? Med Care 2000; 38: 366–73PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Teng TO, Adams ME, Pliskin IS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15 (3): 369–90CrossRef Teng TO, Adams ME, Pliskin IS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15 (3): 369–90CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Willingness to pay for a QALY
Theoretical and methodological issues
verfasst von
Dr Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2005
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 5/2005
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523050-00002

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2005

PharmacoEconomics 5/2005 Zur Ausgabe