Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring QALYs for HTA and Health Policy Decision Making: Bridging the Gap Between Power and Act

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy Today: A Multifaceted View of their Unstable Crossroads

  • 1129 Accesses

Abstract

‘Dynamic’ and ‘energy’ are two modern words coming from the Ancient Greek words ‘dunamis’ and ‘energeia’, respectively. In times of Aristotle these terms described the tension between potency and actuality. Something can exist potentially in the sense that there is the capability that allows it to become real. In contrast, actuality denotes the fulfilment of that potentiality. Therefore, the dichotomy power-act finishes when, thanks to an activity, something merely possible becomes fully actual.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(2):208-16.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellán-Perpiñán JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. J Health Econ. 2003;22:1037-52.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Wakker PP. Using descriptive findings of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Science. 2001;47:1498-514.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pinto JL, Abellán-Perpiñán JM. When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference. Soc Choice Welfare. 2012;38(4):569-84.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garratt AM, Schmidt L, MacKintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal. 2002;324:1417-21.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):17-27.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Pinto JL, Méndez I, Badía X. Towards a better QALY model. Health Economics. 2006;15:665-76.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement. J Health Econ. 2009;28:1039-47.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Sánchez FI, Martínez JE, Méndez I. Lowering the floor of the SF-6D algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Economics. 2012;21:1271-85.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Literature. 2000;38:332-82.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bleichrodt H, Abellan-Perpiñán JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Mendez-Martinez I. Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurement under risk: tests of generalizations of expected utility. Management Science. 2007;53(3):469.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pinto JL, Herrero C, Abellán-Perpiñán J. QALY-based cost-effcetiveness analysis. Adler MD, Fleurbaey M, (eds). Handbook of well-being and public policy. Oxford University Press, In press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Plott CP. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes. Arrow KJ, Colombatto E, Perlman M, Schmidt C, (eds). The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior: Proceedings of the IEA Conference Held in Turin Italy. St Martin’s Press New York, 1996:225-50.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;12:39-53.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Characterizing QALYs under a general rank-dependent utility model. J Risk Uncertainty. 1997;15:151-65.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Pinto JL. Quality adjusted life years as expected utilities. Spanish Economic Review. 2000;2(1):49-63.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research. 1980;28(1):206-54.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miyamoto JM. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) utility models under expected utility and rank dependent utility assumptions. J Mathematical Psychol. 1999; 43:201-37.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bleichrodt H, Filko M. New tests of QALYs when health varies over time. J Health Econ. 2008;27:1237-49.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith C, Zenglong Z, Depauw S, Denton M, Boyle M. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care. 2002;40(2):113-28.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-92.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wakker P, Deneffe D. Eliciting von Newman-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science. 1996;42(8):1131-50.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pinto JL, Abellán-Perpiñán JM. Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach. Health Economics. 2005;14(1):69-82.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-91.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992;5:297-323.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Parducci A. Category judgment: a range-frequency model. Psychological Review. 1965;72(6):407-18.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schwartz A. Rating scales in context. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:236.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCord M, de Neufville R. Lottery equivalents: reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Science. 1986;32:56-60.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Camerer C. Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory. In utility: theories measurement and applications. Edwards W (ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston MA; 1992;207-51.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brazier J, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care. 2004;42:851-9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care. 1997;35:1095-108.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7-16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Patrick DK, Starks HE, Cain KC, Uhlmann RF, Pearlman RA. Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:9-18.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):348-61.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wakker P. Lessons learned by (from?). An economist working in medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(5):690-8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Van Osch SM, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM. Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(5):11-7.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  39. Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393-402.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pinto JL, Rodríguez E. The lead time trade-off: the case of health states better than death. WP ECON 1110 Universidad Pablo de Olavide, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Parkin D, Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Economics. 2006;15(7):653-64.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Sánchez FI, Martínez JE, Méndez I. Debiasing Eq-5D tariffs. New estimations of the Spanish Eq-5D value set under nonexpected utility. 2009; CENTRA Documento de Trabajo E2009/06.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

    José-María Abellán-Perpiñán

Authors
  1. José-María Abellán-Perpiñán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Spanish Association for Healthcare Technology,Evaluation (AEETS), Director, Gaspar Casal FoundationPresident, Madrid, Spain

    Juan E. del Llano-Señarís

  2. Health Services and Policy Research, Balearic Health Service, Palma de Mallorca, Spain

    Carlos Campillo-Artero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abellán-Perpiñán, JM. (2015). Measuring QALYs for HTA and Health Policy Decision Making: Bridging the Gap Between Power and Act. In: del Llano-Señarís, J., Campillo-Artero, C. (eds) Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy Today: A Multifaceted View of their Unstable Crossroads. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15004-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation