IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i4p410-420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick W. Sullivan

    (University of Colorado Department of Economics, Boulder, and University of Colorado School of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research Program; Patrick.Sullivan@UCHSC.edu.)

  • Vahram Ghushchyan

    (University of Colorado Department of Economics, Boulder, and University of Colorado School of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research Program)

Abstract

Background . The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has called for an “off-the-shelf†catalogue of nationally representative, community-based preference scores for health states, illnesses, and conditions. A previous review of cost-effectiveness analyses found that 77% did not incorporate community-based preferences, and 33% used arbitrary expert or author judgment. These results highlight the necessity of making a wide array of appropriate, community-based estimates more accessible to cost-effectiveness researchers. Objective . To provide nationally representative EQ-5D index scores for chronic ICD-9 codes. Methods . The nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was pooled (2000–2002) to create a data set of 38,678 adults. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression methods were used to estimate the marginal disutility of each condition, controlling for age, comorbidity, gender, race, ethnicity, income, and education. Results . Most chronic conditions, age, comorbidity, income, and education were highly statistically significant predictors of EQ-5D index scores. Homoskedasticity and normality assumptions were rejected, suggesting only CLAD estimates are theoretically unbiased. The magnitude and statistical significance of coefficients varied by analytic method. OLS and Tobit coefficients were on average 60% and 143% greater than CLAD, respectively. The marginal disutility of 95 chronic ICD-9 codes as well as unadjusted mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentiles are reported. Conclusion . This research provides nationally representative, communitybased EQ-5D index scores associated with a wide variety of chronic ICD-9 codes that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick W. Sullivan & Vahram Ghushchyan, 2006. "Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 410-420, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:410-420
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06290495
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06290495?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    2. Richardson, J., 1994. "Cost utility analysis: What should be measured?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 7-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    2. Colin Green, 2001. "On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade‐off technique?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 233-243, April.
    3. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    4. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    5. Bleichrodt, Han & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 155-175, April.
    6. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 1997. "QALYs and HYEs Spotting the differences," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 601-608, October.
    7. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    9. Jeff Richardson & Erik Nord, 1997. "The importance of Perspective in the Measurement of Quality-adjusted Life Years," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 33-41, February.
    10. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Kompal Sinha & Munir A. Khan & John Mckie, 2014. "An Instrument For Measuring The Social Willingness To Pay For Health State Improvement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 792-805, July.
    12. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    13. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    14. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    15. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    16. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    18. Islam, M. Kamrul & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Gullberg, Bo & Lindström, Martin & Merlo, Juan, 2008. "Social capital externalities and mortality in Sweden," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-42, March.
    19. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    20. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:410-420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.