QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey
- PMID: 12457369
- DOI: 10.1002/hec.695
QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey
Abstract
The appropriate criteria that should be used in setting priorities in a publicly funded health care system remain open to debate. From a health economics perspective, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are increasingly portrayed as a measure of societal value and the criterion of QALY maximisation is then advocated. This paper reports a study that investigated the extent to which some of the assumptions underlying the QALY maximisation approach, notably constant marginal societal value for increases in the size of health programmes, the level of risk, and the level of benefit are supported by members of the public. A general population interview-based survey was conducted. The survey design employed conjoint methods. In general, the public preference data from this study, in themselves, are not much at odds with the core proportionality assumptions concerning societal value in the QALY maximisation model assumptions. The data are, however, at odds with reports from various previous studies.
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life.Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):210-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15619389. Epub 2015 Dec 15. Med Decis Making. 2016. PMID: 26670663
-
Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence.Health Expect. 2002 Sep;5(3):210-22. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00182.x. Health Expect. 2002. PMID: 12199660 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Societal Preferences for Interventions with the Same Efficiency: Assessment and Application to Decision Making.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Jun;14(3):375-85. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0236-3. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016. PMID: 26940671
-
The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study.PLoS One. 2018 Jun 13;13(6):e0197374. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197374. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 29897894 Free PMC article.
-
QALYS and ethics: a health economist's perspective.Soc Sci Med. 1996 Dec;43(12):1795-804. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00082-2. Soc Sci Med. 1996. PMID: 8961422 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Feb;14(1):89-104. doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016. PMID: 26445967 Free PMC article.
-
What Does Society Value About Cancer Medicines? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Belgian Population.Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Dec;17(6):895-902. doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00504-4. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019. PMID: 31359269 Free PMC article.
-
Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.Patient. 2014;7(2):151-70. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0048-1. Patient. 2014. PMID: 24566923
-
Comparing Public and Provider Preferences for Setting Healthcare Priorities: Evidence from Kuwait.Healthcare (Basel). 2021 May 8;9(5):552. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9050552. Healthcare (Basel). 2021. PMID: 34066745 Free PMC article.
-
Industry Perspectives on Market Access of Innovative Drugs: The Relevance for Oncology Drugs.Front Pharmacol. 2016 Jun 1;7:144. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00144. eCollection 2016. Front Pharmacol. 2016. PMID: 27313529 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources