IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i1d10.1007_s40273-024-01437-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences

Author

Listed:
  • F. Reed Johnson

    (Duke University School of Medicine
    Duke University School of Medicine)

  • John J. Sheehan

    (Janssen Scientific Affairs)

  • Semra Ozdemir

    (Duke University School of Medicine
    Duke University School of Medicine)

  • Matthew Wallace

    (Duke University School of Medicine)

  • Jui-Chen Yang

    (Duke University School of Medicine)

Abstract

Objectives This study was designed to test hypotheses regarding the path dependence of health-outcome values in the form of linear additivity of health-state utilities and diminishing marginal utility of health outcomes. Methods We employed a discrete-choice experiment to quantify patient treatment preferences for major depressive disorder. In a series of choice questions, participants evaluated seven symptom-improvement sequences and out-of-pocket costs over 6-week durations. Money-equivalent values were derived from a deductive latent-class mixed-logit analysis. Results The discrete-choice experiment was completed by 751 respondents with self-reported major depressive disorder recruited from an online commercial panel. The class-membership probability was 0.83 for latent-class preferences consistent with supporting relative importance weights for all symptom-improvement sequences in the study design. First, we found strong support for diminishing marginal utility in symptom-improvement sequences. The money-equivalent value of an initial week of normal mood was $147 (95% confidence interval: $128, $166) and a second week of normal mood was $70 ($49, $91). Furthermore, for short treatment durations where conventional discounting was not a factor, equivalent changes in health status were valued more highly for an earlier onset of effect: holding subsequent symptom patterns constant, $338 (211, 454) versus $70 (49, 91) for improvements starting in week 2 versus week 3 and $147 ($128, $166) versus $29 (−$4, $64) for improvements starting in week 3 versus week 4. Conclusions Our findings imply that conventional quality-adjusted life-year calculations in which health values are assumed to be path independent can understate the value of health improvements that appear earlier in a sequence.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Reed Johnson & John J. Sheehan & Semra Ozdemir & Matthew Wallace & Jui-Chen Yang, 2025. "How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 45-52, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01437-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01437-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01437-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-024-01437-0?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01437-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.