IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i4p511-521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using EQ-5D Data to Measure Hospital Performance: Are General Population Values Distorting Patients’ Choices?

Author

Listed:
  • Nils Gutacker

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Thomas Patton

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Koonal Shah

    (PHMR, London, UK)

  • David Parkin

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK, and Department of Economics, City University of London, London, UK)

Abstract

Background. The English National Health Service publishes hospital performance indicators based on average postoperative EQ-5D index scores after hip replacement surgery to inform prospective patients’ choices of hospital. Unidimensional index scores are derived from multidimensional health-related quality-of-life data using preference weights estimated from a sample of the UK general population. This raises normative concerns if general population preferences differ from those of the patients who are to be informed. This study explores how the source of valuation affects hospital performance estimates. Methods. Four different value sets reflecting source of valuation (general population v. patients), valuation technique (visual analog scale [VAS] v. time tradeoff [TTO]), and experience with health states (currently experienced vs. experimentally estimated) were used to derive and compare performance estimates for 243 hospitals. Two value sets were newly estimated from EQ-5D-3L data on 122,921 hip replacement patients and 3381 members of the UK general public. Changes in hospital ranking (nationally) and performance outlier status (nationally; among patients’ 5 closest hospitals) were compared across valuations. Results. National rankings were stable under different valuations (rank correlations >0.92). Twenty-three (9.5%) hospitals changed outlier status when using patient VAS valuations instead of general population TTO valuations, the current approach. Outlier status also changed substantially at the local level. This was explained mostly by the valuation technique, not the source of valuations or experience with the health states. Limitations. No patient TTO valuations were available. The effect of value set characteristics could be established only through indirect comparisons. Conclusion. Different value sets may lead to prospective patients choosing different hospitals. Normative concerns about the use of general population valuations are not supported by empirical evidence based on VAS valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • Nils Gutacker & Thomas Patton & Koonal Shah & David Parkin, 2020. "Using EQ-5D Data to Measure Hospital Performance: Are General Population Values Distorting Patients’ Choices?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 511-521, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:511-521
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20927705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20927705
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20927705?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923, Decembrie.
    2. Robinson, Angela & Dolan, Paul & Williams, Alan, 1997. "Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: What lies behind the numbers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1289-1297, October.
    3. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    4. Jacobs,Rowena & Smith,Peter C. & Street,Andrew, 2006. "Measuring Efficiency in Health Care," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521851442, January.
    5. Nils Gutacker & Chris Bojke & Silvio Daidone & Nancy Devlin & Andrew Street, 2013. "Hospital Variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes at the Level of EQ-5D Dimensions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 804-818, August.
    6. Gutacker, Nils & Siciliani, Luigi & Moscelli, Giuseppe & Gravelle, Hugh, 2016. "Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 230-246.
    7. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    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. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    2. Ferreira, D.C. & Marques, R.C., 2019. "Do quality and access to hospital services impact on their technical efficiency?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 218-236.
    3. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    4. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    5. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    6. Song, Jia & Chen, Gang & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2024. "One and the same or different? An empirical comparison of aged care recipient and non-aged care recipient preferences for quality of aged care amongst older Australians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).
    7. Sebastian Himmler & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Happy with Your Capabilities? Valuing ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A States Based on Experienced Utility Using Subjective Well-Being Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 498-510, May.
    8. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Milad Karimi & Tessa Peasgood & Aki Tsuchiya & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 881-891, July.
    9. Emelie Heintz & Marieke Krol & Lars-Åke Levin, 2013. "The Impact of Patients’ Subjective Life Expectancy on Time Tradeoff Valuations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 261-270, February.
    10. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.
    11. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Koonal Shah & Kristina Burström, 2018. "Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 253-270, June.
    12. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    13. Rita Matos & Diogo Ferreira & Maria Isabel Pedro, 2021. "Economic Analysis of Portuguese Public Hospitals Through the Construction of Quality, Efficiency, Access, and Financial Related Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 361-392, August.
    14. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    15. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    16. Moscone, Francesco & Siciliani, Luigi & Tosetti, Elisa & Vittadini, Giorgio, 2020. "Do public and private hospitals differ in quality? Evidence from Italy," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    18. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Daniel Avdic & Tugba Bueyuekdurmus & Giuseppe Moscelli & Adam Pilny & Ieva Sriubaite, 2018. "Subjective and objective quality reporting and choice of hospital: Evidence from maternal care services in Germany," CINCH Working Paper Series 1803, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health.
    20. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:40:y:2020:i:4:p:511-521. 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.