IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i4p413-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of HU12 and HU13 Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

  • Eileen A. Sandberg

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

  • Sally S. Araki

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

  • Karen M. Kuntz

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

  • David Feeny

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

  • Milton C. Weinstein

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Neumann: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115. telephone: (617) 432-1312, fax: (617) 432-0190, e-mail.)

Abstract

Purpose. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a generic, multiattribute, preference-based health-status classification system. The HUI Mark 3 (HU13) differs from the earlier HUI2 by modifying attributes and allowing more flexibility for capturing high levels of impairment. The authors compared HUI2 and HU13 scores of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregivers, and contrasted results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of new drugs for AD using the two systems. Methods. In a cross-sectional study of 679 AD patient/caregiver pairs, stratified by patient's disease stage (questionable/mild/moderate/severe/profound/terminal) and setting (community/assisted living/nursing home), caregivers completed the combined HU12/HU13 questionnaire as proxy respondents for patients and for themselves. Results. Mean (SD) global utility scores for patients were lower on the HU13 (0.22[0.26]) than on the HU12 (0.53 [0.21]). Patient HU13 utility scores ranged from 0.47(0.24) for questionable AD to -0.23 (0.08) for terminal AD, compared with a range of 0.73 (0.15) to 0.14 (0.07) for the HU12. Among the 203 patients in the severe, profound, and terminal stages, 96 (48%) had negative global HU13 utility scores, while none had a negative HU12 score. The utility scores for caregivers were similar on the HUI3 (0.87 [0.14]) and HU12 (0.87 [0.11]). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new medication to treat AD showed somewhat more favorable results using the HU13. Conclusions. The HU12 and HU13 discriminate well across AD stages. Compared with the HU12, the HUI3 yields lower global utility scores for patients with AD, and more scores for states judged worse than dead. The HUI3 may yield substantially different results from the HU12, particularly for persons who have serious cognitive impairments such as AD. Key words: Health Utility Index; Alzheimer's disease ; utility assessment. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:413-422)

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Neumann & Eileen A. Sandberg & Sally S. Araki & Karen M. Kuntz & David Feeny & Milton C. Weinstein, 2000. "A Comparison of HU12 and HU13 Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(4), pages 413-422, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:413-422
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000405?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. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    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. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Monali S Malvankar-Mehta & Yufeng Nancy Chen & Sangita Patel & Angela Pui-Kei Leung & Man Mohan Merchea & William G Hodge, 2015. "Immediate versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    4. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    5. Stengos, Thanasis & Thompson, Brennan S., 2012. "Testing for bivariate stochastic dominance using inequality restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-62.
    6. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    7. Emmanuelle Piérard, 2016. "The effect of health care expenditures on self-rated health status and the Health Utility Index: Evidence from Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Joan Costa-Font & Frank A. Cowell, 2022. "The measurement of health inequalities: does status matter?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 299-325, June.
    9. Barry Dewitt & Alexander Davis & Baruch Fischhoff & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "An Approach to Reconciling Competing Ethical Principles in Aggregating Heterogeneous Health Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 647-656, August.
    10. Jorgen Lauridsen & Terkel Christiansen & Unto Häkkinen, 2004. "Measuring inequality in self‐reported health—discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 725-732, July.
    11. Nan Luo & Qinan Wang & David Feeny & Geraldine Chen & Shu-Chuen Li & Julian Thumboo, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Health States: A Study of Feasibility and Preference Differences among Ethnic Groups in Singapore," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 61-70, January.
    12. Bleichrodt, Han & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2002. "A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 397-403, May.
    13. Krupnick, Alan & Taylor, Michael & Batz, Michael & Hoffmann, Sandra & Tick, Jody & Morris, Glenn & Sherman, Diane, 2004. "Identifying the Most Significant Microbiological Foodborne Hazards to Public Health: A New Risk Ranking Model," RFF Working Paper Series dp-frsc-dp-01, Resources for the Future.
    14. Miller, Ray & Chin, Sayorn & Sedai, Ashish Kumar, 2022. "The welfare cost of late-life depression," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 15-36.
    15. Doorslaer, Eddy van & Jones, Andrew M., 2003. "Inequalities in self-reported health: validation of a new approach to measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 61-87, January.
    16. Barry Dewitt & George W. Torrance, 2020. "Incorporating Mortality in Health Utility Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 862-872, October.
    17. Dolores Jiménez‐Rubio & Peter C. Smith & Eddy Van Doorslaer, 2008. "Equity in health and health care in a decentralised context: evidence from Canada," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 377-392, March.
    18. Louis S. Matza & Glenn Phillips & Barry Dewitt & Katie D. Stewart & David Cella & David Feeny & Janel Hanmer & Deborah M. Miller & Dennis A. Revicki, 2020. "A Scoring Algorithm for Deriving Utility Values from the Neuro-QoL for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 897-911, October.
    19. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2019. "EQ-5D-5L is More Responsive than EQ-5D-3L to Treatment Benefit of Cataract Surgery," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(4), pages 383-392, August.
    20. Hoffmann, Sandra A. & Taylor, Michael R. & Morris, Joe & Krupnick, Alan J. & Batz, Michael B., 2004. "Identifying The Most Significant Microbiological Foodborne Risks To Public Health: A New Risk-Ranking Model," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20291, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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:20:y:2000:i:4:p:413-422. 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.