IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i5p732-750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obtaining Utility Estimates of the Health Value of Commonly Prescribed Treatments for Asthma and Depression

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Orlando Edelen

    (RAND Health, Santa Monica, California, Maria_Edelen@rand.org)

  • M. Audrey Burnam

    (RAND Health, Santa Monica, California)

  • Katherine E. Watkins

    (RAND Health, Santa Monica, California)

  • José J. Escarce

    (RAND Health, Santa Monica, California)

  • Haiden Huskamp

    (Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts)

  • Howard H. Goldman

    (Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore)

  • Gary Rachelefsky

    (Allergy Research Foundation, Inc., Los Angeles, California, Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of California, Los Angeles)

Abstract

Background. Comparing the costs and health value associated with alternative quality improvement efforts is useful. This study employs expert panel methodology to elicit numerical estimates based on a 0 to 1 utility scale of the health benefit of usual treatment patterns for 2 medical conditions. Method. The approach includes development of clinical profiles and derivation of treatment benefit estimates via the elicitation of utility ratings before and after treatment. Clinical profiles specified characteristics of patient groups, treatments to be rated, and their combinations. A panel of 13 asthma and depression experts made a series of utility ratings (before any new treatment, 1 or 3 mo later with no treatment, 1 or 3 mo after initiating various common treatments) for adult patient groups with depression or asthma. The panel convened to discuss discrepancies and subsequently made final ratings. Treatment benefit estimates were derived from the ratings made by the panelists after the panel meeting. Results. The treatment benefit estimates had face validity and minimal variability, indicating considerable consensus among experts. Treatment benefit estimates ranged from − 0.03 to 0.25 for depression and from − 0.04 to 0.24 for asthma. There was minimal variation in the estimates for both conditions (the estimates' standard deviations ranged from 0.01 to 0.06). Comparisons of the treatment benefit estimates before and after the expert panel meeting indicated substantial convergence, and evidence suggests that the benefit estimates are comparable across the 2 health conditions. Conclusion. Comparable estimates of treatment benefit for distinct health conditions can be obtained from experts using the expert panel methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Orlando Edelen & M. Audrey Burnam & Katherine E. Watkins & José J. Escarce & Haiden Huskamp & Howard H. Goldman & Gary Rachelefsky, 2008. "Obtaining Utility Estimates of the Health Value of Commonly Prescribed Treatments for Asthma and Depression," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 732-750, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:732-750
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315251
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08315251?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis G. Fryback & William F. Lawrence & Patricia A. Martin & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein, 1997. "Predicting Quality of Well-being Scores from the SF-36," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Abraham Mehrez & Amiram Gafni, 1993. "Healthy-years Equivalents versus Quality-adjusted Life Years," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 287-292, December.
    3. Sharon-Lise T. Normand & Richard G. Frank & Thomas G. McGuire, 2002. "Using Elicitation Techniques to Estimate the Value of Ambulatory Treatments for Major Depression," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(3), pages 245-261, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    3. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    4. John A. Nyman, 2004. "Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost–utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 417-427, May.
    5. William F. Lawrence & John A. Fleishman, 2004. "Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D Preference Scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a Nationally Representative Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(2), pages 160-169, March.
    6. Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
    7. Richard G. Frank & Ernst R. Berndt & Alisa B. Busch, 2003. "Quality-Constant Price Indexes for the Ongoing Treatment of Schizophrenia: An Exploratory Study," NBER Working Papers 10022, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 1997. "HYE and TTO: What is the difference?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 563-578, October.
    9. W. Greiner & K. Lehmann & S. Earnshaw & C. Bug & R. Sabatowski, 2006. "Economic evaluation of Durogesic in moderate to severe, nonmalignant, chronic pain in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(4), pages 290-296, December.
    10. Jarmo Hahl & Helena Hämäläinen & Tuula Simell & Olli Simell, 2006. "The Effects of Type 1 Diabetes and its Long-Term Complications on Physical and Mental Health Status," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 559-569, June.
    11. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    12. Brazier, J & Dolan, P, 2005. "Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method," MPRA Paper 29760, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Alan M. Garber, 1999. "Advances in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions," NBER Working Papers 7198, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Ried, Walter, 1998. "QALYs versus HYEs--what's right and what's wrong. A review of the controversy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 607-625, October.
    15. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    16. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    17. Ried, Walter, 1996. "QALYs versus HYEs - What's Right and What's Wrong," Discussion Papers 544, Institut fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Abteilung fuer Volkswirtschaftslehre.

    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:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:732-750. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.