IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5


  • Richard Norman

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Gisselle Gallego

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)


Background: Economic evaluation of healthcare interventions and technologies using the quality-adjusted life year (or life year) usually values outcomes independently of who they accrue to. This is a simplifying assumption relating to the more complex societal preferences. While the premise of equal value has been criticised as being unreflective of societal views, no alternative has gained significant traction. Aims: To identify the trade-offs made by an Australian population between total gain in life expectancy, initial life expectancy, gender, income and smoking status, and then to generate equity weights for economic evaluation from these results. Method: A discrete choice experiment was used in an online panel. 241 respondents answered twelve binary choices, and the results were analysed using logistic regression. Equity weights were then generated using Hicksian compensating variation. Results: A typical individual was willing to discriminate based on smoking and income, but not on gender or initial life expectancy (although the last of these is considered within a narrow range of 55-75 years). However, there was considerable heterogeneity in respondents. Equity weights ranged from 0.673 for smokers with an above average income to 1.207 for non-smokers with a below average income. This result was sensitive to the point at which the marginal utility of time was estimated. Conclusion: Healthcare decision making, using an orthodox QALY model, does not capture the views of society, particularly with regard to smoking or income. We have presented an alternative approach, weighting outcomes dependent on the personal characteristics of the individual receiving them. The feasibility of including this finding in economic evaluation is as yet uncertain and has to be investigated further.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2008/5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, September 2008
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Tsuchiya, Aki & Dolan, Paul, 2007. "Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2499-2503, June.
    3. Nancy Devlin & David Parkin, 2004. "Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 437-452.
    4. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    5. J.M.C. Santos Silva, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 913-918.
    6. Aki Tsuchiya & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 147-159.
    7. Williams, Alan, 1996. "QALYs and ethics: A health economist's perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(12), pages 1795-1804, December.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 919-924.
    9. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 328-328.
    10. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208.
    11. Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693.
    12. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    13. Browning, Colette J. & Thomas, Shane A., 2001. "Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 853-861, March.
    14. Olsen, Jan Abel & Richardson, Jeff & Dolan, Paul & Menzel, Paul, 2003. "The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(7), pages 1163-1172, October.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Economic evaluation; discrete choice experiment;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:2008/5. 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: .

    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.