IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/respap/000172.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Health at the End of Life: An Exploratory Preference Elicitation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Shah, K.
  • Tsuchiya, A.
  • Wailoo, A.

Abstract

In 2009, the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued supplementary advice that its Appraisal Committees are to consider when assessing treatments that extend life at the end of life. This includes an option for approving such treatments for use in the NHS if certain criteria are met, even if base case cost-effectiveness estimates exceed the range usually considered acceptable. The policy thus places additional weight on the survival benefits for a small numbers of patients with terminal illnesses and short life expectancies. It assumes that this accurately reflects the societal preferences of the general public. However, little scientific evidence is available to support that premise. Reported in this paper are the results of initial research to help fill the gap in evidence, completed by Koonal Shah of the OHE in collaboration with Aki Tsuchiya and Allan Wailoo of the University of Sheffield. This exploratory study was conducted in April 2011 with a convenience sample of 21 members of staff and post-graduate students at the University of Sheffield. The results provide some indication of public support for a policy that assigns higher priority to the treatment of patients with short remaining life expectancy and sudden disease onset. The authors note that - 'The most common driver of respondents' choices was a concern about how much time patients have to 'prepare for death', which indicates, prima facie, support for NICE's end of life policy. However, the ways in which information on patient age and the timing of treatment affected responses was not straightforward and in some cases contrary to the authors' conjectured predictions. The results also suggest that improving quality of life is at least as, if not more, important than extending life in the end of life scenario.'

Suggested Citation

  • Shah, K. & Tsuchiya, A. & Wailoo, A., 2011. "Valuing Health at the End of Life: An Exploratory Preference Elicitation Study," Research Papers 000172, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:respap:000172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/365%20-ValuingHealthatEnd_Dec2011.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    2. Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Allan Wailoo, 2014. "Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 389-399, May.
    3. Shah, K. & Devlin, N., 2012. "Understanding Social Preferences Regarding the Prioritisation of Treatments Addressing Unmet Need and Severity," Research Papers 000126, Office of Health Economics.

    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. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    2. Adler, Matthew D. & Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Werner B. F. Brouwer & Frans F. H. Rutten, 2010. "The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation: will it help German policy making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1128-1131, October.
    5. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    6. Kvamme, Maria Knoph & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Olsen, Jan Abel & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2010. "Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life-expectancy?: Results from a population survey," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 541-548, July.
    7. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Shearer, Emily & Mossialos, Elias, 2020. "Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    8. Mousazadeh, M. & Torabi, S. Ali & Pishvaee, M.S. & Abolhassani, F., 2018. "Accessible, stable, and equitable health service network redesign: A robust mixed possibilistic-flexible approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 113-129.
    9. 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.
    10. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, 2008. "Preferences for ‘life‐saving’ programmes: Small for all or gambling for the prize?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 709-720, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    13. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    14. Mæstad, Ottar & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Eliciting people's preferences for the distribution of health: A procedure for a more precise estimation of distributional weights," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 570-577, May.
    15. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Lyttkens, Carl Hampus & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Tinghög, Gustav, 2018. "Do We Know What We Are Doing? An Exploratory Study on Swedish Health Economists and the EQ-5D," Working Papers 2018:40, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    17. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Valuing health technologies at nice: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1109-1116, October.
    18. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    19. Lesley Chim & Glenn Salkeld & Patrick Kelly & Wendy Lipworth & Dyfrig A Hughes & Martin R Stockler, 2017. "Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, March.
    20. Morton, Alec, 2014. "Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 164-173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics of Health Technology Assessment;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:respap:000172. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.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.