IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2006-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10

Author

Listed:
  • Rosalie Viney

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Elizabeth Savage

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Abstract

This paper investigates the nature of the utility function for health care, defined over the probability of survival, survival duration, health state and cost of treatment. A discrete choice experiment, involving treatment choice for a hypothetical health condition is used to test restrictions on preferences in the QALY model. We find that preferences do not conform to expected utility, and there are significant interactions between health state and survival duration. Individual characteristics are significant, implying substantial differences in valuations of health states across the population. The results suggest the QALY approach distorts valuations of health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage, 2006. "Health care policy evaluation: empirical analysis of the restrictions implied by Quality Adjusted Life Years, CHERE Working Paper 2006/10," Working Papers 2006/10, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2006/10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2006_10.pdf
    File Function: First version, June 2005
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesson, Magnus, 1995. "Quality-adjusted life-years versus healthy-years equivalents -- A comment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 9-16, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1999. "Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 681-708, December.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs under a General Rank Dependent Utility Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 151-165, November.
    5. Bleichrodt, Han & Wakker, Peter & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs by Risk Neutrality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 107-114, November.
    6. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Madeleine King & Jordan Louviere & Rosalie Viney & Angela Yeoh, 2002. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 457-465.
    7. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage & Jordan Louviere, 2005. "Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 349-362.
    8. Daniel T. Slesnick, 1998. "Empirical Approaches to the Measurement of Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2108-2165, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Anne Spencer, 2003. "The TTO method and procedural invariance," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 655-668.
    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. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Qalys; preferences; health state valuation;

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:her:chewps:2006/10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.