Advertisement

The societal monetary value of a QALY associated with EQ-5D-3L health gains

  • Laura Vallejo-TorresEmail author
  • Borja García-Lorenzo
  • Oliver Rivero-Arias
  • José Luis Pinto-Prades
Original Paper

Abstract

There is an extensive body of empirical research that focuses on the societal monetary value of a quality-adjusted life year (MVQALY). Many of these studies have found the estimates to be inversely associated with the size of the health gain, and thus not conforming to the linearity assumption imposed in the QALY model. In this study, we explore the extent to which the MVQALY varies when it is associated with different types and magnitudes of quality of life (QoL) improvements. To allow for a comprehensive assessment, we derive the MVQALY corresponding to the full spectrum of health gains defined by the EQ-5D-3L instrument. The analysis was based on a large and representative sample of the population in Spain. A discrete choice experiment and a time trade-off exercise were used to derive a value set for utilities, followed by a willingness to pay questionnaire. The data were jointly analysed using regression analyses and bootstrapping techniques. Our findings indicate that societal values for a QALY corresponding to different EQ-5D-3L health gains vary approximately between 10,000€ and 30,000€. MVQALY associated with larger improvements on QoL was found to be lower than that associated with moderate QoL gains. The potential sources of the observed non-constant MVQALY are discussed.

Keywords

Willingness to pay Quality-adjusted life year Social perspective EQ-5D 

JEL Classification

D61 I10 I18 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Juan Manuel Ramos Goñi and Marcel Minke for their support with the survey design and implementation. We are very grateful to Juan Oliva Moreno, Fernando I. Sánchez Martínez and Eva M. Rodríguez Míguez for their comments on previous versions of this paper. We also want to thank all the researchers, health professionals and health economists that reviewed our survey, as well as all the participants that completed our questionnaire.

Funding

This work was undertaken in the framework of activities run by the Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, funded by the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality in Spain.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ryen, L., Svensson, M.: The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ. (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nimdet, K., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Vichansavakul, K., Ngorsuraches, S.: A systematic review of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year: does it justify CE threshold? PLoS One 10, e0122760 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122760 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, R., Chilton, S., Donaldson, C., Jones-Lee, M., Lancsar, E., Mason, H., Metcalf, H., Pennington, M., Wildman, J.: Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Econ. Policy Law 6, 435–447 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133111000181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., Devlin, N., Smith, P.C., Sculpher, M.: Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol. Assess. 19(1–503), 5–6 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Castilla, I., Valcárcel-Nazco, C., García-Pérez, L., Linertová, R., Polentinos-Castro, E., Serrano-Aguilar, P.: On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Heal. (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Serrano-Aguilar, P.: Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS. Heal. Econ. (United Kingdom). (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Castilla, I., Valcárcel-Nazco, C., García-Pérez, L., Linertová, R., Polentinos-Castro, E., Serrano-Aguilar, P.: On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: why, what, how? Value Heal. 19, 558–566 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abellán-Perpiñán, J.-M., Pinto-Prades, J.-L., Méndez-Martínez, I., Badía-Llach, X.: Towards a better QALY model. Health Econ. 15, 665–676 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1095 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson, A., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Bacon, P., Baker, R., Pennington, M., Donaldson, C.: Estimating a WTP-based value of a QALY: the “chained” approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 92, 92–104 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinto-Prades, J.L., Loomes, G., Brey, R.: Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY. J. Health Econ. 28, 553–562 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.02.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bobinac, A., van Exel, N.J.A., Rutten, F.F.H., Brouwer, W.B.F.: GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation. J. Health Econ. 31, 158–168 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.09.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gyrd-Hansen, D., Kjaer, T.: Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers. Health Econ. 21, 222–237 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1709 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haninger, K., Hammitt, J.K.: Diminishing willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year: valuing acute foodborne illness. Risk Anal. 31, 1363–1380 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01617.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nord, E., Enge, A.U., Gundersen, V.: QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. 19, 596–607 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nord, E.: Beyond QALYs: multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies. Eur. J. Heal. Econ. 19, 267–275 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0882-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A.: Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J. Health Econ. 31, 306–318 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bansback, N., Hole, A.R., Mulhern, B., Tsuchiya, A.: Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: addressing design and sampling issues. Soc. Sci. Med. 114, 38–48 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Pinto-Prades, J.L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J.M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., Rivero-Arias, O.: Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med. Care 00, 1–8 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Craig, B.M., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Pinto-Prades, J.L., Luo, N., Rivero-Arias, O.: Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Heal. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rivero-Arias, O., García-Lorenzo, B., Valcárcel-Nazco, C.: Comparing adolescents and adult preferences to EQ-5D-Y health states using profile case best-worst scaling. Pap. Present. 33rd EuroQol Plenary Meet, Berlin. 15–16 Sept. (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norman, R., Viney, R., Brazier, J., Burgess, L., Cronin, P., King, M., Ratcliffe, J., Street, D.: Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med. Decis. Making 34, 773–786 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Marley, A.A., Coast, J., Peters, T.J.: Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul. Health Metr. 6, 6 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-6-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Viney, R.: The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores. Pharmacoeconomics. 34, 805–814 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Badia, X., Roset, M., Monserrat, S., Herdman, M.: The Spanish VAS tariff based on valuation of EQ-5D health states from the general population. In: EuroQol plenary meeting rotterdam, pp 93–114 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE): Cifras de población. https://www.ine.es (2017). Accessed 26 Jan 2019
  26. 26.
    Donaldson, C., Baker, R., Mason, H., Pennington, M., Bell, S., Lancsar, E., Jones-Lee, M., Wildman, J., Robinson, A., Bacon, P., Olsen, J.A., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Bech, T.K.M., Nielsen, J.S., Persson, U., Bergman, A., Protière, C., Moatti, J.P., Luchini, S., Prades, J.L.P., Mataria, A., Khatiba, R.A.: European value of a quality adjusted life year. https://research.ncl.ac.uk/eurovaq/EuroVaQ_Final_Publishable_Report_and_Appendices.pdf (2010). Accessed 13 Apr 2018
  27. 27.
    Ministerio de Sanidad Consumo y Bienestar Social: Encuesta Nacional de Salud de España. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/encuestaNacional/home.htm (2017). Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  28. 28.
    Gyrd-Hansen, D.: Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ. 12, 1049–1060 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.799 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hammitt, J.K., Haninger, K.: Willingness to pay for food safety: sensitivity to duration and severity of illness. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89, 1170–1175 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01079.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hammit, J.K., Graham, J.D.: Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J. Risk Uncertain. 8, 33–62 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S., Strand, J.: Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manage 73, 317–331 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martín-Fernández, J., Polentinos-Castro, E., del Cura-González, M.I., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Abraira, V., Gil-LaCruz, A.I., García-Pérez, S.: Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: an evaluation of attitudes towards risk and preferences. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 287 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-287 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Quantitative Methods in Economics and ManagementUniversity of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaLas PalmasSpain
  2. 2.Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC)Canary IslandsSpain
  3. 3.Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC)Canary IslandsSpain
  4. 4.Assessment of Innovations and New Technologies Unit, Hospital ClínicUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelona, CataloniaSpain
  5. 5.National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Nuffield Department of Population HealthUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  6. 6.Univerity of NavarraNavarraSpain

Personalised recommendations