IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i3p288-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimates of Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Loss for Injuries in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • William Raich

    (Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA)

  • Jennifer Baxter

    (Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA)

  • Megan Sheahan

    (Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA)

  • Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert

    (Stanford University School of Medicine. Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Patrick Sullivan

    (PRECISIONheor, New York, NY, USA)

  • Janel Hanmer

    (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

Abstract

Purpose The goal of this study is to develop an approach for estimating nationally representative quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss from injury and poisoning conditions using data collected in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Methods This study uses data from the 2002–2015 NHIS and MEPS surveys. Injuries were identified in the MEPS medical events file and through self-reporting of medical conditions. We restricted our model to 163,731 adults, for which we predict a total of 294,977 EQ-5D scores using responses to the self-administered questionnaire. EQ-5D scores were modeled using age, sex, comorbidities, and binary indicators of the presence and duration of injury at the time of the health status questionnaire. These models consider nonlinearity over time during the first 3 y following the injury event. Results Injuries are identified in MEPS using medical events that provide a reasonable proxy for the date of injury occurrence. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) decrements can be estimated using binary indicators of injury during different time periods. When grouped into 29 injury categories, most categories were statistically significant predictors of HRQL scores in the first year after injury. For these groups of injuries, mean first-year QALY loss estimates range from 0.005 (sprains and strains of joints and adjacent muscles, n = 7067) to 0.109 (injury to nerves and spinal cord, n = 71). Fewer estimates are significant in the second and third years after injury, which may reflect a return to baseline HRQL. Conclusion This research presents both a framework for estimating QALY loss for short-lived medical conditions and nationally representative, community-based HRQL scores associated with a wide variety of injury and poisoning conditions. Highlights This research provides a catalog of nationally representative, preference-based EQ-5D score decrements associated with surviving a large set of injuries, based on patient-reported health status. Mean first-year QALY loss estimates range from 0.005 (sprains and strains of joints and adjacent muscles, n = 7067) to 0.109 (injury to nerves and spinal cord, n = 71). This article presents a novel methodology for assessing quality-of-life impacts for acute conditions by calculating the time elapsed between injury and health status elicitation. Researchers may explore adapting these methods to study other short-lived conditions and health states, such as COVID-19 or chemotherapy.

Suggested Citation

  • William Raich & Jennifer Baxter & Megan Sheahan & Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert & Patrick Sullivan & Janel Hanmer, 2023. "Estimates of Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Loss for Injuries in the United States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 288-298, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:3:p:288-298
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221141454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221141454
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221141454?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. William Dale & Anirban Basu & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2008. "Predicting Utility Ratings for Joint Health States from Single Health States in Prostate Cancer: Empirical Testing of 3 Alternative Theories," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 102-112, January.
    2. Janel Hanmer & William F. Lawrence & John P. Anderson & Robert M. Kaplan & Dennis G. Fryback, 2006. "Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 391-400, 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. Rakesh Aggarwal & Qiushi Chen & Amit Goel & Nicole Seguy & Razia Pendse & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment using generic direct-acting antivirals available in India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    3. Mickaël Hiligsmann & Stuart S. Silverman & Andrea J. Singer & Leny Pearman & Jake Mathew & Yamei Wang & John Caminis & Jean-Yves Reginster, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(7), pages 819-830, July.
    4. Ara, R & Brazier, JE, 2010. "Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition specific data are not available," MPRA Paper 29946, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Prajakta P. Masurkar & Haluk Damgacioglu & Ashish A. Deshmukh & Meghana V. Trivedi, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 709-718, June.
    8. Lisa J McGarry & Girishanthy Krishnarajah & Gregory Hill & Michelle Skornicki & Narin Pruttivarasin & Cristina Masseria & Bhakti Arondekar & Stephen I Pelton & Milton C Weinstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tdap in the Prevention of Pertussis in the Elderly," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    9. Amber Pearson & Gregory Breetzke, 2014. "The Association Between the Fear of Crime, and Mental and Physical Wellbeing in New Zealand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 281-294, October.
    10. James K. Hammitt, 2017. "Valuing Non-Fatal Health Risks: Monetary and Health-Utility Measures," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(3), pages 335-356.
    11. Andrea C Villanti & Yiding Jiang & David B Abrams & Bruce S Pyenson, 2013. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    12. Mehmet A. Ergun & Ali Hajjar & Oguzhan Alagoz & Murtuza Rampurwala, 2022. "Optimal breast cancer risk reduction policies tailored to personal risk level," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 363-388, September.
    13. Iris Buder & Cathleen Zick & Norman Waitzman, 2020. "The Contribution of Physical Activity to Health-Related Quality of Life: New Population Estimates from National Survey Data," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 55-71, March.
    14. Roberta Ara & Allan J. Wailoo, 2013. "Estimating Health State Utility Values for Joint Health Conditions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 139-153, February.
    15. Steven D Criss & Lauren Palazzo & Tina R Watson & Adelle M Paquette & Keith Sigel & Juan Wisnivesky & Chung Yin Kong, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    16. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Yinong Young-Xu & Robertus van Aalst & Ellyn Russo & Jason K H Lee & Ayman Chit, 2017. "The Annual Burden of Seasonal Influenza in the US Veterans Affairs Population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. James Hammitt & Tuba Tunçel, 2015. "Preferences for life-expectancy gains: Sooner or later?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 79-101, August.
    19. Robert M. Brackbill & Howard E. Alper & Patricia Frazier & Lisa M. Gargano & Melanie H. Jacobson & Adrienne Solomon, 2019. "An Assessment of Long-Term Physical and Emotional Quality of Life of Persons Injured on 9/11/2001," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.

    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:43:y:2023:i:3:p:288-298. 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.