IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v39y1994i12p1623-1632.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

QALYs, HYEs and individual preferences-- A graphical illustration

Author

Listed:
  • Johannesson, Magnus

Abstract

The choice of outcome measure in cost-utility analysis has been a matter of concern. In particular the theoretical properties of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthy-years equivalents (HYEs) have been debated. In this paper the underlying preference assumptions of QALYs and HYEs are illustrated graphically. For QALYs the assumptions of mutual utility independence, constant proportional trade-off, and risk neutrality are explained and illustrated. Mutual utility independence is shown to guarantee that the quality weight with the standard gamble method is independent of the number of years in the health state and constant proportional trade-off is shown to guarantee that the quality weight with the time-trade-off method is independent of the number of years in the health state. Together these two assumptions leads to a utility function over life-years that exhibits constant proportional risk posture, which is the basis for the risk-adjusted QALY model. The more commonly used risk-neutral QALY model is shown to be a valid cardinal utility function if risk neutrality over life-years holds for all health states. For HYEs to be a valid cardinal utility function the somewhat less restrictive assumption of risk neutrality over life-years in full health has to be made. It is also shown graphically that the proposed two-stage procedure to measure HYEs in theory gives the same result as directly using the time-trade-off method. Finally, it is shown that by estimating the certainty-equivalent number of HYEs it is possible in theory to obtain a measure that will always rank risky health profiles according to individual preferences. It is concluded that further empirical work should be undertaken to test the ranking properties of the different measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannesson, Magnus, 1994. "QALYs, HYEs and individual preferences-- A graphical illustration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 1623-1632, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:12:p:1623-1632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90076-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan R. Treadwell, 1998. "Tests of Preferential Independence in the QALY Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 418-428, October.
    2. Linda D. Mackeigan & Bernie J. O'Brien & Paul I. Oh, 1999. "Holistic versus Composite Preferences for Lifetime Treatment Sequences for Type 2 Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 113-120, April.
    3. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    4. Peter Wakker, 1996. "A Criticism of Healthy-years Equivalents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 207-214, August.
    5. Mark Sculpher, 1998. "The cost‐effectiveness of preference‐based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 129-142, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:12:p:1623-1632. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.