Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) have been used since the 1980s as a standard health outcome measure for conducting cost-utility analyses, which are often inadequately labeled as ‘cost-effectiveness analyses’. This synthetic outcome, which combines the quantity of life lived with its quality expressed as a preference score, is currently recommended as reference case by some health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. While critics of the QALY approach have expressed concerns about equity and ethical issues, surprisingly, very few have tested the basic methodological assumptions supporting the QALY equation so as to establish its scientific validity.

Objectives

The main objective of the ECHOUTCOME European project was to test the validity of the underlying assumptions of the QALY outcome and its relevance in health decision making.

Methods

An experiment has been conducted with 1,361 subjects from Belgium, France, Italy, and the UK. The subjects were asked to express their preferences regarding various hypothetical health states derived from combining different health states with time durations in order to compare observed utility values of the couples (health state, time) and calculated utility values using the QALY formula.

Results

Observed and calculated utility values of the couples (health state, time) were significantly different, confirming that preferences expressed by the respondents were not consistent with the QALY theoretical assumptions.

Conclusions

This European study contributes to establishing that the QALY multiplicative model is an invalid measure. This explains why costs/QALY estimates may vary greatly, leading to inconsistent recommendations relevant to providing access to innovative medicines and health technologies. HTA agencies should consider other more robust methodological approaches to guide reimbursement decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If u(.) is a Neumanian-type utility function on E associated with an agent preferences, then, whatever the real numbers a and b such as a >0, function v(.) = au(.) + b is also a Neumanian-type utility function associated to the preferences of the same agent, and reciprocally. Then if u(.) is measured in a reference system S1, v(.) can be measure in a reference system S2 after a change of unit (role of coefficient a) and a change of origin (role of coefficient b).

  2. In order to measure the utility of a health state z, so that z1 z, where the utility of z1 is equal to 1, the duration t < T for which the pair (T,z) is indifferent to the pair (t, z 1) is assessed. It is then postulated that the utility of z, v(z), is equal to t/T. The assumption that enables this result, and which is not often stated, is that the utility function on the pairs (t,z) is of the type tv(z). It is precisely this specification that is at the origin of our interrogations.

References

  1. Keeney RL, Raïffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives, preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res. 1980;28:206–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Holmes D. Report triggers quibbles over QALYs, a staple of health metrics. Nat Med. 2013;19(13):248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S18–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Auray Beresniak JP. About the robustness of theoretical foundations of QALY. Estud de Econ Aplicada. 2006;24–3:685–96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beresniak A, Russell AS, Haraoui B, et al. Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(11):2193–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duru G, Auray JP, Béresniak A, et al. Limitations of the methods used for calculating quality-adjusted life-year values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(7):463–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

  10. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). 2010. PL111-148. p. 3–23.

  12. IQWiG. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to cost. Cologne: German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2009. p. 19.

  13. Neumann PJ. What next for QALYs? JAMA. 2011;305(17):1806–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.

  15. McGregor M, Caro JJ. QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(10):947–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(7):1571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality adjusted life-years by different preference-based instrument. Med Care. 2003;41:791–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(9):2091–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buckingham KJ, Devlin NJ. A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(2):362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Popper K. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Methodology Basic Books; 1962. p. 428.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen MD. Risk aversion concept in expected and non-expected-utility models. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Theory. 1995;20:73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Doctor JN, Bleichrodt H, Lin HJ. Health utility bias: a systematic review and meta-analytic evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):58–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):447–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nord E, Menzel P, Richardson J. Multi-method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning. Health Econ. 2006;15(2):215–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ariza-Ariza R, Hernández-Cruz B, Carmona L, et al. Assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between time trade-off and the EuroQol. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):751–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jorstad IC, Kirstiansen IS, Uhlig T, et al. Performance of four utility measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA): well correlated but differing widely in valuing health states. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(9):S660.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Richardson J, Sinha K, Iezzi A, et al. Maximising health versus sharing: measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(8):1351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mauskopf J, Rutten F, Schonfeld W. Cost-effectiveness league tables: valuable guidance for decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(14):991–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ. 1993;2(1):59–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, et al. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 1992;34(9):993–1004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gafni A, Birch S, Mehrez A. Economics, health and health economics: HYEs (healthy-years equivalent) versus QALYs (quality-adjusted live-year). J Health Econ. 1993;12(3):325–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Johannesson M. The ranking properties of healthy-years equivalents and quality-adjusted life-years under certainty and uncertainty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11(1):40–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Birch S, Gafni A, Markham B, et al. Health years equivalents as a measurement of preferences for dental interventions. Community Dent Health. 1998;15(4):233–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dreaper J. Researchers claim NHS drug decisions ‘are flawed’. BBC News, 2013 Jan 24. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21170445. Accessed 4 Sep 2014.

  35. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Beresniak A, Dupont DM, Becker JC, et al. Interest of modelling in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012;30(4 Suppl 73):S96–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Wilt GJ, Groenewoud H, van Riel P. Bridging the gap between aggregate data and individual patient management: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):133–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosas MA, Bezerra AF, Duarte-Neto PJ. Use of artificial neural networks in applying methodology for allocating health resources. Rev Saude Publica. 2013;47(1):128–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Williams A. QALYS and ethics: a health economist’s perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(12):1795–804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions of Louise Crathorne who kindly reviewed the manuscript.

Disclaimer

This project has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under agreement n° 242203. The sole responsibility for the content of this article lies with the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Conflicts of interests

No conflict of interests have been declared by the authors.

Authors’ contributions

AB, JPA, GD, and ML have designed the study. AB, AM-L, JPA, GD, and ML have carried out the methodological framework. ADW, J-CP, RT, AT, AM-L, and ML have organized the data collection. AB, DD, GD, and JPA have contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have contributed to the interpretation of the results and to the revision of the manuscript. AB is acting as the overall guarantor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ariel Beresniak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beresniak, A., Medina-Lara, A., Auray, J.P. et al. Validation of the Underlying Assumptions of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome: Results from the ECHOUTCOME European Project. PharmacoEconomics 33, 61–69 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0216-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0216-0

Keywords

Navigation