IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2008-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Norman

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Gisselle Gallego

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Abstract

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
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2008_5.pdf
    File Function: First version, September 2008
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    3. 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, September.
    4. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 909-912, September.
    5. 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, September.
    6. 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, February.
    7. 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, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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, May.
    11. 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, February.
    12. Williams, Alan, 1996. "QALYs and ethics: A health economist's perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(12), pages 1795-1804, December.
    13. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4), pages 328-328.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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, September.
    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 & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    2. Nikolina Dukic Samarzija & Andrea Arbula Blecich & Luka Samarzija, 2018. "The Paradigm Of Patient-Centered Care In The Public Health Decision-Making," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 27(2), pages 503-516, december.

    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. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    2. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    3. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & Kovac, M., 2019. "The economic value of tourism and recreation across a large protected area network," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    5. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    6. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    7. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    8. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    9. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    10. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    11. Ebenezer Kwabena Tetteh & Steve Morris & Nigel Titcheneker-Hooker, 2017. "Discrete-choice modelling of patient preferences for modes of drug administration," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.
    13. Joanna Coast & Philip Kinghorn & Paul Mitchell, 2015. "The Development of Capability Measures in Health Economics: Opportunities, Challenges and Progress," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 119-126, April.
    14. Raquel Espino & Juan Ortúzar & Concepción Román, 2006. "Confidence Interval for Willingness to Pay Measures in Mode Choice Models," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 81-96, June.
    15. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    16. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.
    17. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    18. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    19. Chris Skedgel & Allan Wailoo & Ron Akehurst, 2015. "Societal Preferences for Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Health Care Resources," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 94-105, January.
    20. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    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:

    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:2008/5. 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: Liz Chinchen The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Liz Chinchen to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    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.