The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 267–275 | Cite as

Beyond QALYs: Multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies

Original Paper

Abstract

The QALY is a useful outcome measure in cost-effectiveness analysis. But in determining the overall value of and societal willingness to pay for health technologies, gains in quality of life and length of life are prima facie separate criteria that need not be put together in a single concept. A focus on costs per QALY can also be counterproductive. One reason is that the QALY does not capture well the value of interventions in patients with reduced potentials for health and thus different reference points. Another reason is a need to separate losses of length of life and losses of quality of life when it comes to judging the strength of moral claims on resources in patients of different ages. An alternative to the cost-per-QALY approach is outlined, consisting in the development of two bivariate value tables that may be used in combination to estimate maximum cost acceptance for given units of treatment—for instance a surgical procedure, or 1 year of medication—rather than for ‘obtaining one QALY.’ The approach is a follow-up of earlier work on ‘cost value analysis.’ It draws on work in the QALY field insofar as it uses health state values established in that field. But it does not use these values to weight life years and thus avoids devaluing gained life years in people with chronic illness or disability. Real tables of the kind proposed could be developed in deliberative processes among policy makers and serve as guidance for decision makers involved in health technology assessment and appraisal.

Keywords

QALY Societal value Graded willingness to pay Proportional shortfall Absolute shortfall Cost value analysis 

JEL Classification

D61  D63 I13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Jaime Caro, Paul Menzel, Jeff Richardson, and Michael Schlander for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Ottersen, T., Førde, R., Kakad, M., Kjellevold, A., Melberg, H.O., Moen, A., Ringard, Å., Norheim, O.F.: A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: open and fair. Health Policy 120, 246–251 (2016)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission: Priorities in Health Care. SOU 1995:5. Stockholm: The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van de Wetering, E.J., Stolk, E.A., van Exel, N.J.A., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14, 107–115 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): Appraising life-extending, end-of-life treatments. Guidelines. London: NICE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menzel, P.: Strong Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson, J.: Economic assessment of health care: theory and practice. The Australian Economic Review (1991). (1st quarter, 4–19)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nord, E.: An alternative to QALYs: the saved young life equivalent (SAVE). Br. Med. J. 305, 875–877 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams, A.: Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 6, 117–132 (1997)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nord, E., Pinto, J.L., Richardson, J., Menzel, P., Ubel, P.: Incorporating concerns for fairness in economic evaluation of health programs. Health Econ. 8, 25–39 (1999)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baltussen, R., Niessen, L.: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 4, 14 (2006)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caro, J., Nord, E., Siebert, U., McGuire, A., McGregor, M., Henry, D., de Pouvourville, G., Atella, V., Kolominsky-Rabas, P.: The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ. 19, 1117–1127 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norheim, O.F., Baltussen, R., Johri, M., Chisholm, D., Nord, E., Brock, D., et al.: Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by CEA. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 12, 18 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlander, M., Garattini, S., Holm, S., Kolominsky-Rabas, P., Nord, E., Persson, U., et al.: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 3, 399–422 (2014)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization: Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hausman, D.: Valuing health. Oxford Press, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nord, E.: The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 24, 227–238 (1993)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nord, E.: Cost-value analysis of health interventions: introduction and update on methods and preference data. Pharmacoeconomics 33, 89–95 (2015)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brock, D.: Justice and the ADA: does prioritizing and rationing health care discriminate against the disabled? Soc. Philos. Policy 12(2), 159–185 (1995)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chombart de Lauwe, P.H.: Sociologie des aspirations. Denoël, Paris (1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nord, E., Enge, A., Gundersen, V.: QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. 19, 596–607 (2010)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daniels, N.: Just health care. Cambridge University Press, New York (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oliver, A., Mossialos, E.: Evidence based public health policy and practice equity of access to health care: outlining the foundations for action. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 58, 655–658 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nord, E.: Public values for health states versus societal valuations of health improvements: a critique of Dan Hausman’s ‘Valuing health’. Public Health Ethics (2016). doi: 10.1093/phe/phw008 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stolk, E., Pickee, S., Ament, A., Busschbach, J.: Equity in health care prioritization: an empirical inquiry into social value. Health Econ. 74, 343–355 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norwegian Ministry of Health.: White Paper on Priority Setting. Oslo (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris, J.: The value of life. Routledge, London (1985)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nord, E., Johansen, R.: Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: a review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Policy 116, 281–288 (2014)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., Maxwell, A.: Maximising health versus sharing: measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget. Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 1351–1361 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute of Public HealthOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations