IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i8p679-693.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

QALY‐maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey

Author

Listed:
  • Stirling Bryan
  • Tracy Roberts
  • Chris Heginbotham
  • Alison McCallum

Abstract

The appropriate criteria that should be used in setting priorities in a publicly funded health care system remain open to debate. From a health economics perspective, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) are increasingly portrayed as a measure of societal value and the criterion of QALY maximisation is then advocated. This paper reports a study that investigated the extent to which some of the assumptions underlying the QALY maximisation approach, notably constant marginal societal value for increases in the size of health programmes, the level of risk, and the level of benefit are supported by members of the public. A general population interview‐based survey was conducted. The survey design employed conjoint methods. In general, the public preference data from this study, in themselves, are not much at odds with the core proportionality assumptions concerning societal value in the QALY maximisation model assumptions. The data are, however, at odds with reports from various previous studies. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY‐maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:8:p:679-693
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.695
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.695?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. John A. Cairns, 1994. "Valuing future benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(4), pages 221-229, July.
    2. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132, March.
    3. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    4. Dolan, Paul, 1998. "The measurement of individual utility and social welfare," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-52, January.
    5. Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
    6. Jan Abel Olsen, 1994. "Persons vs years: Two ways of eliciting implicit weights," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(1), pages 39-46, January.
    7. Carol Propper, 1988. "Estimation of the value of time spent on NHS waiting lists using stated preference metholdology," Working Papers 049chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    8. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1995. "The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 145-151, November.
    9. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    10. Dolan, Paul & Cookson, Richard, 2000. "A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 19-30, February.
    11. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    12. Stirling Bryan & Martin Buxton & Robert Sheldon & Alison Grant, 1998. "Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 595-603, 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. Gold, Marthe Rachel & Franks, Peter & Siegelberg, Taryn & Sofaer, Shoshanna, 2007. "Does providing cost-effectiveness information change coverage priorities for citizens acting as social decision makers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 65-72, September.
    2. Seda Erdem & Danny Campbell & Arne Risa Hole, 2015. "Accounting for Attribute‐Level Non‐Attendance in a Health Choice Experiment: Does it Matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(7), pages 773-789, July.
    3. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    4. 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.
    5. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    6. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. Girard, Dorota Zdanowska, 2005. "The cost of epidemiological transition: A study of a decrease in pertussis vaccination coverage," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 287-303, November.
    8. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    9. Warburton, Rebecca Nunn, 2005. "Patient safety -- how much is enough?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 223-232, February.
    10. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    11. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    12. Kim Pauwels & Isabelle Huys & Minne Casteels & Yvonne Denier & Martina Vandebroek & Steven Simoens, 2019. "What Does Society Value About Cancer Medicines? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Belgian Population," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 895-902, December.
    13. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Tritter, Jonathan Quetzal & McCallum, Alison, 2006. "The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 156-168, April.

    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. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    2. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    3. Carl Lyttkens, 2003. "Time to disable DALYs?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 195-202, September.
    4. Richardson, Jeff & McKie, John, 2007. "Economic evaluation of services for a National Health Scheme: The case for a fairness-based framework," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 785-799, July.
    5. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    6. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    7. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "A universal preference for equality in health? Reasons to reconsider properties of applied social welfare functions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1836-1843.
    8. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    9. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465, July.
    10. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    11. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Loss Aversion: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Health-Care Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 3238, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Einat Neuman & Shoshona Neuman, 2008. "Reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion: A discrete choice experiment in the health-care sector," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 162-173, February.
    13. Ottersen, Trygve & Mbilinyi, Deogratius & Maestad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2008. "Distribution matters: Equity considerations among health planners in Tanzania," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 218-227, February.
    14. David L.B. Schwappach, 2003. "Does it matter who you are or what you gain? an experimental study of preferences for resource allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 255-267, April.
    15. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    16. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    17. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    18. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    19. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    20. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:8:p:679-693. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.