Skip to main content

A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey

Abstract

Purpose

The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) is currently the major endpoint used in the Medicare managed care outcomes measure in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®), referred to as the Health Outcomes Survey (HOS). The purpose of this study is to adapt the Brazier SF-6D utility measure to the VR-12 to generate a single utility index.

Methods

We used the HOS cohorts 2 and 3 for SF-36 data and 9 for VR-12 data. We calculated SF-6D scores from the SF-36 using the algorithms developed by Brazier and colleagues. The values of the Brazier SF-6D were used to estimate utility scores from the VR-12 using a mapping approach based on a 2-stage mapping procedure, named as VR-6D.

Results

The VR-6D derived from the VR-12 has similar distributional properties as the SF-6D. The change in VR-6D showed significant variations across disease groups with different levels of morbidity and mortality.

Conclusions

This study produced a utility measure for the VR-12 that is comparable to the SF-6D and responsive to change. The VR-6D can be used in evaluations of health care plans and cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the health gains that health care interventions can achieve.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Abbreviations

SF-36:

Short form 36-Item Health Survey

VR-36:

Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey

MRE:

Modified regression estimate

VR-12:

Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey

HEDIS:

Healthcare Effectiveness Data And Information Set

MA:

Medicare advantage

HOS:

Health Outcomes Survey

MRE:

Modified regression estimation

QALYs:

Quality adjusted life years

References

  1. Eichler, H. G., Kong, S. X., Gerth, W. C., Mavros, P., & Jönsson, B. (2004). Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health, 7, 518–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gold, M. R., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kazis, L. (Chair of committee report) (in alphabetical order) Bierman, A., Diehr, P., Hays, R., Holzman, J., Iqbal, S.U., Kaplan, R., Lawrence, W., Rogers, W., Scholle, S.H., Selim, A., Shapiro, G., Smith, K. A White Paper report commissioned by CMS with Recommendations for the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore Maryland, October 26, 2007.

  4. HEDIS®2003 Volume 6. February 2003. Specifications for the medicare health outcomes survey. Washington, DC: National Committee for Quality Assurance.

  5. Neumann, P. J., Rosen, A. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (2005). Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1516–1522.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinstein, M. C., Siegel, J. E., Gold, M. R., Kamlet, M. S., & Russell, L. B. (1996). Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 276, 1253–1258.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., et al. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17(1), 13–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Andresen, E. M., Rothenberg, B. M., & Kaplan, R. M. (1998). Performance of a self-administered mailed version of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) questionnaire among older adults. Medical Care, 36(9), 1349–1360.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Feeny, D., Toorance, G., Furlong, W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2, 217–227.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12 Item Short Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., et al. (2006). Applications of methodologies of the Veterans Health Study in the VA healthcare system: Conclusions and summary. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29, 182–188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey: What it is and how it is used. Available from: http://www.va.gov/chqoer/VR12.pdf. Accessed 9 August 2010.

  16. Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kazis, L. E., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., et al. (1999). Health status in VA patients: Results from the Veterans Health Study. American Journal of Medical Quality, 14, 28–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanmer, J. (2009). Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS Scores from the SF-36 or SF-12. Value in Health, 12, 958–966.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Imputing the Physical and Mental Summary Scores (PCS and MCS) for the MOS SF-36 and the Veterans SF-36 Health Survey in the presence of Missing Data. http://www.hosonline.org/surveys/hos/download/HOS_Veterans_36_Imputation.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2010.

  20. Kazis, L. E., Selim, A., Rogers, W., Ren, X. S., Lee, A., & Miller, D. R. (2006). Dissemination of methods and results from the veterans health study: Final comments and implications for future monitoring strategies within and outside the veterans healthcare system. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 29, 310–319.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., et al. (2004). Patient-reported measures of health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27, 70–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(3), 263–280.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. K. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A users’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1995). SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scores. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., et al. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18, 43–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ara, R., & Brazier, J. (2009). Predicting SF-6D preference-based utilities using the SF-36 health summary scores: Approximating health related utilities when patient level data is not available. Value in Health, 12, 346–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., et al. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27, 263–280.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perlin, J., Kazis, L. E., Skinner, K., et al. (2000). Health status and outcomes of veterans: Physical and mental component summary scores veterans SF-36. 1999 large health survey of veteran enrollees, executive report. Office of Quality and Performance (10Q) and Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, HSR&D Field Program, Washington D.C. and Bedford Massachusetts.

  29. Bullen, P. S., & Mitrinović, D. S., Vasić, P. M. “Means and their inequalities,” Reidel (1988) pp. 27ff.

  30. Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harrison, M., Davies, L., Bansback, N. J., McCoy, M. J., Verstappe, S. M. S., Watson, K., Symmons, D. P. M. and the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium (2009). Qual Life Res 18:1195–1205.

  32. Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsuchiya, A., & Dolan, P. (2005). The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: A systematic review of the literature. Medical Decision Making, 25, 460–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith, M. D., Drummond, M., & Brixner, D. (2009). Moving the QALY forward: Rationale for change. Value Health, 1, S1–S4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ferreira, P. L., Ferreira, L. N., & Pereira, L. N. (2008). How consistent are health utility values? Quality of Life Research, 17, 1031–1042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Seymour, J., McNamee, P., Scott, A., & Tinelli, M. (2010). Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Economics, 19, 683–696.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., Roberts, J., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 597–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kharroubi, S. A., Brazier, J. E., & O’Hagan, A. (2007). Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1242–1252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research in this article was supported in part by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) under contract number HHSM-500-2009-00051C; the Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices (CAPP) Boston University School of Public Health, Boston MA and the Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research (CHQOER), Veterans Administration Medical Center, Bedford MA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis E. Kazis.

Additional information

SF-36® and SF-12® are registered trademarks of the Medical Outcomes Trust.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

In the figure below, the Y-axis is the actual value. The X-axis is the predicted value. The red curve is the regression of the SF-6D on 7 SF-36 scales (without General Health scale). The blue curve is the regression of the SF-6D on 8 SF-36 scales (with General Health). The dark green curve is the Ara and Brazier SF-6D [23]. The orange line is the line from (0,0) to (1,1). For each type of prediction, the predicted values were lumped into buckets 0.4% wide and the actual SF-6D values are averaged within them. The lines represent the non-linear regression lines organized by predicted values. The values by the original SF-6D algorithm and the regression method tracked each other in the mean utility up to about .8, and from there, the Brazier SF-6D goes up to 1 at roughly twice the rate of the linear version. The curvature in the values reflected the non-linearity of the SF-6D.

We estimated the transformation (T) coefficients using variables defined as follows utility prediction (p) estimated from step 1 and sf6dhat:

  • p2 = p^2;

  • p3 = p^3;

  • p4 = Max(p-86, 0);

  • p42 = p4^2;

  • p5 = Min(p-42, 0);

and a constraint in place that the maximum predicted value should yield a utility of 1.

sf6dhat

T Coef.

SE

t

P > |t| [95% Conf. Interval]

p

4.002

.022

180.06

0.000 3.958 4.045

p2

−.0571

.001

−161.00

0.000 −.0579 −.056

p3

.001

1.850

181.93

0.000 .000 .001

p4

1.895

.042

45.33

0.000 1.813 1.977

p42

.186

.016

11.73

0.000 .156 .218

p5

−.051

.005

−10.06

0.000 −.062 −.042

cons

−47.536

.453

−104.78

0.000 −48.425 −46.647

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Selim, A.J., Rogers, W., Qian, S.X. et al. A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. Qual Life Res 20, 1337–1347 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9866-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9866-y

Keywords