Skip to main content

Challenge 3: Inconsistency

  • 39 Accesses

Abstract

No common definitions exist for how to think or talk about value. Different perspectives, situations, needs, and goals all influence what value may mean and to whom. This inconsistency leaves healthcare professionals to use their best judgment for how to assess value or to apply rigid tools that may not be appropriate for their unique situation. Additionally, inconsistent motivations for assessing value exist; patients, providers, policy makers, and third-party healthcare organizations all seek to assess value for different purposes and to inform different decisions. Without consistency in the language and methods of value assessment the industry as a whole will continue to struggle to agree on what constitutes value or how to increase it.

Keywords

  • Value-based care
  • Definition of value
  • Value assessment

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95149-8_4
  • Chapter length: 9 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-95149-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   83.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 4.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The details of how to apply quality adjustments to life years are not important here, but we can employ various methods to attempt to establish the appropriate quality adjustment.

  2. 2.

    I am describing the general methodology of cost–utility analysis, which we will cover in a later chapter; this calculation is called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

References

  1. Lakdawalla DN, Romley JA, Sanchez Y, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Philipson T (2012) How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff 31(4):676–682. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1300

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Eisler R (2007) The real wealth of nations: creating a caring economy. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leatherman S, Berwick D, Iles D, Lewin LS, Davidoff F, Nolan T, Bisognano M (2003) The business case for quality: case studies and an analysis. Health Aff 22(2):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.22.2.17

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP Jr, Phelps CE, Basu A, Danzon PM (2018) Defining elements of value in health care-a health economics approach: an ISPOR special task force report [3]. Value Health 21(2):131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.007

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Partanen A (2016) The Nordic theory of everything. In: Search of a better life. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Solid, C.A. (2022). Challenge 3: Inconsistency. In: Practical Strategies to Assess Value in Health Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95149-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95149-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95148-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-95149-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)