IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v198y2018icp61-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints

Author

Listed:
  • McHugh, Neil
  • van Exel, Job
  • Mason, Helen
  • Godwin, Jon
  • Collins, Marissa
  • Donaldson, Cam
  • Baker, Rachel

Abstract

Criteria used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to assess life-extending, end-of-life (EoL) treatments imply that health gains from such treatments are valued more than other health gains. Despite claims that the policy is supported by societal values, evidence from preference elicitation studies is mixed and in-depth research has shown there are different societal viewpoints. Few studies elicit preferences for policies directly or combine different approaches to understand preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • McHugh, Neil & van Exel, Job & Mason, Helen & Godwin, Jon & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam & Baker, Rachel, 2018. "Are life-extending treatments for terminal illnesses a special case? Exploring choices and societal viewpoints," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 61-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:198:y:2018:i:c:p:61-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617307499
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Allan Wailoo, 2014. "Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 389-399, May.
    2. Mark Pennington & Rachel Baker & Werner Brouwer & Helen Mason & Dorte Gyrd Hansen & Angela Robinson & Cam Donaldson & the EuroVaQ Team, 2015. "Comparing WTP Values of Different Types of QALY Gain Elicited from the General Public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 280-293, March.
    3. Chris Skedgel & Allan Wailoo & Ron Akehurst, 2015. "Societal Preferences for Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Health Care Resources," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 94-105, January.
    4. Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis & Sánchez-Martínez, Fernando-Ignacio & Corbacho, Belen & Baker, Rachel, 2014. "Valuing QALYs at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 5-14.
    5. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    6. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    7. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    8. Erik Nord, 1995. "The Person-trade-off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 201-208, August.
    9. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    10. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    11. Chilton, Susan & Covey, Judith & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Spencer, Anne, 2002. "Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 211-232, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green, 2020. "Who should be given priority for public funding?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1108-1114.
    3. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Edward Henry & John Cullinan, 2024. "Addressing the distributional consequences of spillovers in health economic evaluation: A prioritarian approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(4), pages 764-778, April.
    5. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Wittenberg, Eve & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2022. "The relative value of carer and patient quality of life: A person trade-off (PTO) study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green & Hong, Jihyung, 2023. "Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.
    3. Hansen, Lise Desireé & Kjær, Trine, 2019. "Disentangling public preferences for health gains at end-of-life: Further evidence of no support of an end-of-life premium," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.
    5. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green & Hong, Jihyung, 2023. "Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    6. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2018. "Is there additional value attached to health gains at the end of life? A revisit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 71-75, January.
    7. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2018. "Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 807-820, July.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    10. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    11. Helen Mason & Marissa Collins & Neil McHugh & Jon Godwin & Job Van Exel & Cam Donaldson & Rachel Baker, 2018. "Is “end of life” a special case? Connecting Q with survey methods to measure societal support for views on the value of life‐extending treatments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 819-831, May.
    12. Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis & Sánchez-Martínez, Fernando-Ignacio & Corbacho, Belen & Baker, Rachel, 2014. "Valuing QALYs at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 5-14.
    13. Reckers-Droog, Vivian & Jansen, Maarten & Bijlmakers, Leon & Baltussen, Rob & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job, 2020. "How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 143-151.
    14. Mason, Helen & van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Brouwer, Werner & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 205-213.
    15. Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & McHugh, Neil & Donaldson, Cam, 2021. "Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    16. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    17. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    18. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    19. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.

    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:198:y:2018:i:c:p:61-69. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.