Valuing qalys at the end of life
AbstractThere have been changes in the way that NICE evaluates medical treatments for patients who are in the last stages of their lives. If medicines fulfil some criteria to be considered “end of life” NICE considers if QALYs gained under these circumstances should receive an extra weight. In this paper we provide evidence about the social support that this policy may have. We present the result of three surveys conducted in the Spanish general population (n=813). Survey 1 compared increases in life expectancy for patients at the end of their lives with health gains from temporary health problems. Survey 2 compared health gains for temporary health problems with health gains from end of life palliative care. Survey 3 compared increases in life expectancy with palliative care in both cases for end of life patients. Preferences were elicited with Person Trade-Off and Willingness to pay techniques. Our results suggest that QALYs for end of life treatments have a higher social value than for temporary health problems. However, we also find that people discriminate between different ways of health gains within End of Life treatment. People seem to attach a greater weight to palliative care than to life extension.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 11.15.
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2011
Date of revision:
QALY weights; end of life; palliative care; life extension;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Martina Garau & Koonal K. Shah & Anne R. Mason & Qing Wang & Adrian Towse & Michael F. Drummond, 2011. "Using QALYs in Cancer: A Review of the Methodological Limitations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 29(8), pages 673-685.
- Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2009. "The social welfare function and individual responsibility: Some theoretical issues and empirical evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 210-220, January.
- Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2009. "Corrigendum to "The social welfare function and individual responsibility: Some theoretical issues and empirical evidence" [J. Health Econ. 28 (2009) 210-220]," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 758-759, May.
- Helen Mason & Michael Jones-Lee & Cam Donaldson, 2009. "Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 933-950.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rocío Fernández).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.