, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 423–432 | Cite as

Willingness to pay for a QALY

Theoretical and methodological issues
Current Opinion


What is a QALY worth in monetary units? This paper presents the main arguments in the literature regarding the obstacles involved in establishing one unique willingness to pay (WTP) estimate for the value of a QALY.

To directly translate QALYs into monetary units, and in this manner translate existing and forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to cost-benefit analyses (CBA), it is necessary that one unique WTP per QALY can be established irrespective of context-specific characteristics such as severity of illness, magnitude of health gain, patient characteristics, etc. Because CEA and CBA are two methods of economic evaluation that are based on two very different normative perceptions of the role of health versus other goods in society, the task of performing a linear translation from QALYs to WTP is theoretically unattainable.

CBA is based on the welfarist perception that the welfare associated with health is measured by way of individual preferences for health outcomes relative to other goods in society. In contrast, CEA is based on the extra-welfarist notion, which focuses on maximising health and not welfare, and suppresses any variation across income/social groups in utility derived from improvements in health. Another obstacle to one unique WTP per QALY value is that marginal utility of income is non-constant, and a function of income level and possibly health status. When marginal utility of income varies across individuals as well as contexts, measuring the value of health in monetary units may result in valuations of health increments that are very different from valuations retrieved had another unit of measure been applied.

In conclusion, from a theoretical point of view, establishing one unique WTP cannot be attained. Applying one sole WTP per QALY value will entail overriding individual preferences such as diminishing marginal utility of health and potential differences in the value of incremental health across population groups. However, one problem that can, and should, be overcome when seeking to establish a monetary value for a QALY is the problem of variance in the marginal utility of income. The importance of applying the appropriate perspective when formulating WTP questions to ensure that the marginal utility of income of the respondents equals that of the financiers of the costs invested to produce the health gains should not be overlooked.


Marginal Utility Contingent Valuation Health Gain Healthcare Programme Cardinal Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript. The author has no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the contents of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Johannesson M. The relationship between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost benefit analysis. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 483–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johannesson M, Meltzer D. Some reflections on cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1998; 7: 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C, et al. Ratio-based and net benefit-based approaches to health care resource allocation: proofs of optimality and equivalence. Health Econ 1999; 8: 171–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirth RA, Chemew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Health Econ 2000; 20: 332–42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992; 146: 473–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1103–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ 2003; 12: 1049–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolan P. The measurement of health-related quality of life. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J, editors. Handbook of Health Economics. Vol. 1B. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000: 1724–62Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem of defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 276–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ 1999; 18: 681–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolan P, Edlin R. Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis? J Health Econ 2002; 21: 827–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pratt JW, Zeckhauser RJ. Willingness to pay and the distribution of risk and death. J Polit Econ 1996; 4: 747–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johannesson and O’Conor. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brekke KA. The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis. J Public Econ 1997; 64: 117–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gyrd-Hansen D, Søgaard J. Discounting life-years: whither time preference?. Health Econ 1998; 7: 121–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 55–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, et al. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ 2003; 12: 545–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gafni A. Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits. Med Care 1991; 29 (12): 1246–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care 1994; 32 (7): 686–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2002; 10: 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000; 51: 19–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a groups discussion study. Health Policy 1999; 49: 63–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL. Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ 1999; 8: 701–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dolan P, Green C. Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ 1998; 7: 307–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nord E. Health state index models for use in resource allocation decisions: a critical review in the light of observed preferences for social choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (1): 31–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ 2000; 9: 611–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryynanen OP, Myllykangan M, Kinnunen J, et al. Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 1529–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsuchiya A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 267–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chamy MC, Lewis PA, Farrow SC. Choosing who shall not be treated in the NHS. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 1331–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ 2000; 9: 137–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johannesson M, Johannesson PO. A note on the prevention versus cure. Health Policy 1997; 41: 181–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Scanlon D, et al. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon’s cost-effectiveness list failed. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 108–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ubel PA. How stable are peoples’ preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 895–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas KK. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 463–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making 1995; 15 (3): 201–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ubel PA, Baron J, Nash B, et al. Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation ‘all or nothing’? Med Care 2000; 38: 366–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Teng TO, Adams ME, Pliskin IS, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15 (3): 369–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Economics Unit, Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations