, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 93–106 | Cite as

Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis

How Choice of Method May Influence Decision-Making
Current Opinion


Preferences for health are required when the economic value of healthcare interventions are assessed within the framework of cost-utility analysis. The objective of this paper was to review alternative methods for preference measurement and to evaluate the extent to which the method may affect healthcare decision-making. Two broad approaches to preference measurement that provide societal health state values were considered: (i) direct measurement; and (ii) preference-based health state classification systems.

Among studies that compared alternative preference-based systems, the EQ-5D tended to provide larger change scores and more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios than the Health Utilities Index (HUI)-2 and -3, while the SF-6D provided smaller change scores and less favourable ratios than the other systems. However, these patterns may not hold for all applications. Empirical evidence comparing systems and decision-making impact suggests that preferences will have the greatest impact on economic analyses when chronic conditions or long-term sequelae are involved. At present, there is no clearly superior method, and further study of cost-effectiveness ratios from alternative systems is needed to evaluate system performance.

Although there is some evidence that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds (e.g. $US50 000 per QALY gained) are used in decision-making, they are not strictly applied. Nonetheless, as ICERs rise, the probability of acceptance of a new therapy is likely to decrease, making the differences in QALYs obtained using alternative methods potentially meaningful.

It is imperative that those conducting cost-utility analyses characterise the impact that uncertainty in health state values has on the economic value of the interventions studied. Consistent reporting of such analyses would provide further insight into the policy implications of preference measurement.


Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Standard Gamble Preference Measurement Health Utility Index Community Preference 
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.



This paper was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (P60-AR048094) and the National Institute on Aging (R01-AG12262). The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.


  1. 1.
    Luce BR. What will it take to make cost-effectiveness analysis acceptable in the United States? Med Care 2005; 43 (7 Suppl.): II44–II48Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neumann PJ. Why don’t Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 308–312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health 2005; 8 (1): 3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neumann PJ, Divi N, Beinfeld MT, et al. Medicare’s national coverage decisions, 1999–2003: quality of evidence and review times. Health Aff 2005; 24 (1): 243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thorpe KE. The rise in health care spending and what to do about it. Health Aff 2005; 24 (6): 1436–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foote SB, Neumann PJ. The impact of Medicare modernization on coverage policy: recommendations for reform. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11 (3): 140–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloom BS. Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making [see comment]. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10 (5): 329–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries. Health working papers. Paris: OECD, 2003Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel J. Cost-effectiveness analysis in US healthcare decision-making: where is it going? Med Care 2005; 43 (7): II-1–II-14Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tunis SR. Economic analysis in healthcare decisions. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10 (5): 301–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aspinall SL, Good C, Glassman PA, et al. The evolving use of cost-effectiveness analysis in formulary management within the Department of Veteran Affairs. Med Care 2005; 43 (7 Suppl.): II20–II6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann PJ. Evidence-based and value-based formulary guidelines. Health Aff 2004; 23 (1): 124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyatt GH, Baumann M, Pauker S, et al. Addressing resource allocation issues in recommendations from clinical practice guideline panels. Suggestions from an American College of Chest Physicians Task Force. Chest 2006; 129: 182–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005; 43 (7 Suppl.): II5–II14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a subtable of “panel-worthy” studies. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 451–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chapman RC, Berger MLMD, Weinstein MC, et al. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis? Health Econ 2004; 13: 429–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schackman BR, Gold HT, Stone PW, et al. How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions? Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (5): 293–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richardson G, Manca A. Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ 2004; 13: 1203–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone DA, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients’ well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (5): 505–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nord E. Toward quality assurance in QALY calculations. Int J Qual Health Care 1993; 9 (1): 37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Committee to Evaluate Measures of Health Benefits for Environmental Health and Safety Regulation. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2006Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health econonomic guidelines: similarities, differences, and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4 (3): 225–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Technology appraisal methods N0515 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Jan 25]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenberg D, Pliskin JS. Preference-based outcome measures in cost-utility analyses: a 20-year overview. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (3): 461–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Ann Rev Public Health 2000; 21: 587–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3 (9): 57–81Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56 (4): 317–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (2): 151–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5 (1): 1–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dolan P. Valuing health-related quality of life: issues and controversies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 15 (2): 119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (5): 559–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42 (5): 459–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 503–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, et al. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 511–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11: 447–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalogue of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13 (2): 89–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37 (1): 53–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dolan P, Roberts J. Modelling valuations for EQ-5D health states: an alternative model using differences in valuations. Med Care 2002; 40 (5): 442–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 490–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6): 503–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988; 23 (2): 203–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (2): 271–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11): 1115–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Asada Y. Medical technologies, nonhuman aids, human assistance, and environmental factors in the assessment of health states. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 867–874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, et al. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Public Health 1981; 71 (6): 620–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    EuroQol Group. EQ-5D [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Jan 31]Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG, Sieber WJ, et al. The quality of well-being scale: critical similarities and differences with SF-36 [see comment]. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10 (6): 509–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006; 15: 653–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    McCabe CJ, Stevens KJ, Brazier J. Utility scores for the health utilities index mark 2: an empirical assessment of alternative mapping functions. Med Care 2005; 43 (6): 627–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier J. Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 2006 May; 15 (5): 527–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 334–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Conner-Spady B, Voaklander DC, Suarez-Almazor ME. The effect of different EuroQol weights on potential QALYs gained in patients with hip and knee replacement. 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group; 2000 Sep 28–29; PamplonaGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Burns AW, Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, et al. Cost effectiveness of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 29–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fryback DG. A US valuation of the EQ-5D. Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 199–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Murti B, et al. Comparison of Finnish and US-based visual analog scale valuations of the EQ-5D measure. Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (3): 281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Johnson JA, Luo N, Shaw JW, et al. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different? Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 221–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Badia X, Montserrat R, Herdman M, et al. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 7–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Keeney R. A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manag Sci 1976; 23: 140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Torrance GW. Preferences for health outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3 Suppl.: S8 20Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43 (3): 203–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the Euroqol Group; 2001 Sep 6–7; OdenseGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, et al. The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ 2002; 11 (1): 71–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ, et al. Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: whose values should we use? Med Decis Making 1999; 19 (2): 141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care 2003; 41 (1): 153–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care 2003; 41 (2): 218–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005; 14: 1169–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76: 58–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46 (11): 4016–4023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (5): 1321–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Saigal S, et al. Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 799–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001; 33 (5): 358–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Elvik R. The validity of using health state indexes in measuring the consequences of traffic injury for public health. Soc Sci Med 1995; 40 (10): 1385–1398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    de Vries SO, Kuipers WD, Hunink MG. Intermittent claudication: symptom severity versus health values. J Vasc Surg 1998; 27 (3): 422–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2004; 42 (11): 1125–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schulz MW, Chen J, Woo HH, et al. A comparison of techniques for eliciting patient preferences in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2002; 168 (1): 155–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stavem K, Bjornaes H, Lossius MI. Properties of the 15D and EQ-5D utility measures in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 2001; 44 (2–3): 179–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Luo N, Chew L, Fong K, et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (10): 2268–2274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Maddigan SL, Feeny D, Johnson JA. A comparison of the Health Utilities Indices Mark 2 and Mark 3 in type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making 2003; 23: 489–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    O’Brien BJ, Spathe M, Blackhouse G, et al. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 2003; 12: 975–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Self-reported health status of the general adult US population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilites Index. Med Care 2005; 43 (11): 1078–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Belanger A, Berthelot J-M, Guimond E, et al. A head-to-head comparison of two generic health status measures in the household population: McMaster Health Utilities Index (Mark 3) and the EQ-5D. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Health Analysis and Modelling Group, 2000. Final Revision April 2000Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (1): 207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health 2004; 7 (5): 602–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, Standard Gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 1659–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. A comparison of preference-based health status tools in patients with musculoskeletal disease. 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group; 2001 Sep 6–7; OdenseGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41 (7): 791–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Bosch JL, Hunink M. Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 591–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Suarez-Almazor M, Kendall C, Johnson J, et al. Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 783–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Bosch JL, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making 2002; 22 (5): 403–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kaplan R, Groessl EJ, Sengupta N, et al. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 2005; 43 (1): 79–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003; 12 (12): 1061–1067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Araki SS, et al. A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer’s disease. Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (4): 413–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Holland R, Smith RD, Harvey I, et al. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Econ 2004; 13 (8): 793–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Stavem K, Froland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (4): 971–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Thoma A, Sprague S, Veltri K, et al. Methodology and measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments: a prospective study of patients undergoing breast reduction surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005 Jul 22; 3: 44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Langfitt J, Vickrey B, McDermott M, et al. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 899–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J, et al. Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (32): 1–109Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Stiggelbout AM. Health state classification systems: how comparable are our ratios? Med Decis Making 2006; 25: 223–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Neumann PJ. Health utilities in Alzheimer’s disease and implications for cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (6): 537–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Technology appraisal methods N0515 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Jan 25]Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13: 437–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294 (20): 2618–2622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA 2005; 294 (20): 2630–2632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, et al. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22 (2): 235–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Brauer C, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9 (4): 213–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    De Wit GA, Busschbach JJV, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000; 9: 109–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Greenberg D, Pliskin JS. Using health state classification systems for utility elicitation in the elderly. Med Decis Making 2006; 25: 220–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes [see comment] (published erratum appears in Health Econ 1999 Sep; 8 (6): 559). Health Econ 1999; 8 (1): 25–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Polsky D, Willke RJ, Scott K, et al. A comparison of scoring weights for the Euroqol derived from patients and the general public. Health Econ 2001; 10: 27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Feeny D, Blanchard C, Mahon JL, et al. Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19 (2): 362–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sullivan PW, Gushchyan V. Systematic differences in subjective vs societal preferences. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (9): 2011Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Souchek J, Byrne MM, Kelly PA, et al. Valuation of arthritis health states across ethnic groups and between patients and community members. Med Care 2005; 43 (9): 921–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003; 12 (6): 611–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    McPherson K, Myers J, Taylor WJ, et al. Self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity in chronic and disabling conditions. Med Care 2004; 42 (11): 1143–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Gushchyan V. A national catalogue of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 2005; 43 (7): 736–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making 2006 Jul/Aug; 26 (4): 410–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38 (6): 583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Sherbourne C, Unutzer J, Schoenbaum M, et al. Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Med Care 2001; 39 (11): 1246–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Lee TA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD. Comparison of directly elicited preferences to preferences derived from the SF-36 in adults with asthma. Med Decis Making 2003; 23: 323–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997; 17 (1): 1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Shmueli A. Subjective health status and health values in the general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19 (2): 122–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, et al. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19 (2): 128–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41 (11): 1277–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the Euroqol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Sengupta N, Nichol MB, Wu J, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med Care 2004; 42 (9): 927–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004; 42 (9): 851–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Sanderson K, Andrews G, Corry J, et al. Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status. Qual Life Res 2004; 13 (7): 1255–1264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Sugar C, et al. Estimation of utilities for the effects of depression from the SF-12. Med Care 2000; 38 (7): 763–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2004; 24 (2): 160–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006; 26 (1): 18–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 401–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Lenert LA, Sturley AP, Rapaport MH, et al. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophr Res 2004; 71 (1): 155–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (11): 1143–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Brazier J, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, et al. Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 2004; 7 (4): 490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, et al. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values [see comment]. Med Care 1998; 36 (6): 778–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996; 34 (2): 163–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Erickson P. Evaluation of a population-based measure of quality of life: the Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex). Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 101–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Feeny D. As good as it gets but good enough for which applications? Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 307–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, et al. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3 (1): 11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health. Cost-effectiveness analysis registry [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Feb 2]Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    The Office of Health Economics, The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Associations. Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Feb 2]Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    The United Kingdom National Health Service. Economic evaluation database [online]. Available from URL: http://www. [Accessed 2006 Feb 2]Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    The United Kingdom National Health Service. European Network on Health Economics Evaluation Databases [online]. Available from URL: BLeqEN_PROJ.htm [Accessed 2006 Feb 2]Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    van Elden ME, Severens JL, Novak A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: the influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (11): 1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329 (7472): 972–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Franks P, Hanmer J, Fryback DG. Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 2006; 44 (5): 478–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, et al. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 391–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine M. McDonough
    • 1
  • Anna N. A. Tosteson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dartmouth Medical School, Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Center in Musculoskeletal Diseases and the Center for the Evaluative Clinical SciencesLebanonUSA

Personalised recommendations