IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v14y2005i1p69-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach

Author

Listed:
  • José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades
  • José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán

Abstract

We report the results from two surveys designed to explore whether an application of Harsanyi's principle of choice form behind a veil of ignorance (VEI) can be used in order to measure the health of populations. This approach was tentatively recommended by Murray et al. (Bull. World Health Organ 2000; 78: 981–994; Summary Measures of population health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, WHO, 2002.) as an appropriate way of constructing summary measures of population health (SMPH) for comparative purposes. The operationalization of the VEI approach used in this paper was suggested by Nord (Summary Measures of Population Health: Concepts, Ethics, Measurement and Applications, WHO, 2002.). We test if VEI and person trade‐off (PTO) methods generate similar quality‐of‐life weights. In addition, we compare VEI and PTO weights with individual utilities estimated by means of the conventional standard gamble (SG) and a variation of it we call double gamble. Finally, psychometric properties like feasibility, reliability, and consistency are examined. Our main findings are next: (1) VEI and PTO approaches generate very different weights; (2) it seems that differences between PTO and VEI are not due to the ‘rule of rescue’; (3) the VEI resembled more a DG than a classical SG; (4) PTO, VEI, and DG exhibited good feasibility, reliability and consistency. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2005. "Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 69-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:1:p:69-82
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.887
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.887?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald L. Patrick & Helene E. Starks & Kevin C. Cain & Richard F. Uhlmann & Robert A. Pearlman, 1994. "Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-18, February.
    2. Aickin, M. & Gensler, H., 1996. "Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The Bonferroni vs Holm methods," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(5), pages 726-728.
    3. Erik Nord, 1995. "The Person-trade-off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 201-208, August.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
    6. Peter A. Ubel & George Loewenstein & Dennis Scanlon & Mark Kamlet, 1996. "Individual Utilities Are Inconsistent with Rationing Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 108-116, June.
    7. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "The value of life: individual preferences and social choice. A comment to Magnus Johannesson," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 873-877, October.
    8. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    11. McKie, John & Richardson, Jeff, 2003. "The Rule of Rescue," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 2407-2419, June.
    12. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stavros Petrou & Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala & Angela Robinson & Rachel Baker, 2013. "A Person Trade-Off Study to Estimate Age-Related Weights for Health Gains in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 893-907, October.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:118-133 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    4. Lars Østerdal, 2009. "The lack of theoretical support for using person trade-offs in QALY-type models," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(4), pages 429-436, October.
    5. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jorge-Eduardo Martinez-Perez & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpinan, 2006. "The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 118-133, November.
    6. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    7. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    8. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    9. Lars Peter Østerdal, 2004. "QALYs, Person Trade-Offs, and the Pareto Principle," Discussion Papers 04-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    10. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    11. Begoña Álvarez & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2009. "Patients’ self-interest bias: Empirical evidence from a priority-setting experiment," Working Papers 0903, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.

    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. Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto, Jose Luis & Maria Abellan-Perpinan, Jose, 2003. "A consistency test of the time trade-off," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1037-1052, November.
    2. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Kristian Schultz Hansen & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2006. "Models of Quality‐Adjusted Life Years when Health Varies Over Time: Survey and Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 229-255, April.
    4. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    8. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    10. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 659-674, July.
    11. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    12. Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2022. "Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 277-299, March.
    13. Edward C. Mansley & Elamin H. Elbasha, 2003. "Preferences and person trade‐offs: forcing consistency or inconsistency in health‐related quality of life measures?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 187-198, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    16. Ubel, Peter A. & Richardson, Jeff & Baron, Jonathan, 2002. "Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 189-199, August.
    17. 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.
    18. J. Kirsch & A. McGuire, 2000. "Establishing health state valuations for disease specific states: an example from heart disease," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 149-158, March.
    19. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    20. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:1:p:69-82. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.