PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1069–1078

Utility Measurement in Healthcare

The Things I Never Got To
Conference Paper

Abstract

The present article provides a brief historical background on the development of utility measurement and cost-utility analysis in healthcare. It then outlines a number of research ideas in this field that the author never got to.

The first idea is extremely fundamental. Why is health economics the only application of economics that does not use the discipline of economics? And, more importantly, what discipline should it use? Research ideas are discussed to investigate precisely the underlying theory and axiom systems of both Paretian welfare economics and the decision-theoretical utility approach. Can the two approaches be integrated or modified in some appropriate way so that they better reflect the needs of the health field?

The investigation is described both for the individual and societal levels. Constructing a ‘Robinson Crusoe’ society of only a few individuals with different health needs, preferences and willingness to pay is suggested as a method for gaining insight into the problem.

The second idea concerns the interval property of utilities and, therefore, QALYs. It specifically concerns the important requirement that changes of equal magnitude anywhere on the utility scale, or alternatively on the QALY scale, should be equally desirable. Unfortunately, one of the original restrictions on utility theory states that such comparisons are not permitted by the theory. It is shown, in an important new finding, that while this restriction applies in a world of certainty, it does not in a world of uncertainty, such as healthcare. Further research is suggested to investigate this property under both certainty and uncertainty.

Other research ideas that are described include: the development of a precise axiomatic basis for the time trade-off method; the investigation of chaining as a method of preference measurement with the standard gamble or time trade-off; the development and training of a representative panel of the general public to improve the completeness, coherence and consistency of measured preferences; and the investigation, using a model of a very small society, of the conflict between the patient perspective and the societal perspective regarding preferences.

Finally, it is suggested that an important area of research, which the author never got to, would be to work closely with specific decision makers on specific decision problems, to help them formulate the problem, provide useful analyses, and to publish these as case studies to give the field a better understanding of the problems and the needs of decision makers.

References

  1. 1.
    Birch S, Gafni A. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses: methods for the non-economic evaluation of health care programmes and how we can do better. In: Geisler E, Heller O, editors. Managing technology in health care. Norwell (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996: 51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. Stanford (CA): National Bureau of Economic Research, 1995Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997 Feb; 16 (1): 1–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsuchiya A, Williams A. Welfare economics and economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 22–45Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dolan P, Edlin R. Is it really possible to build a bridge between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis? J Health Econ 2002 Sep; 21 (5): 827–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raiffa H. Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1968Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luce R, Raiffa H. Games and decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dyer JS, Sarin RK. Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper Res 1979 Jul–Aug; 27 (4): 810–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torrance G. Toward a utility theory foundation. Health Serv Res 1976; 11 (4): 349–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buckingham K, Devlin N. A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health. Health Econ 2006; 15 10): 1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney R. Siting energy facilities. New York: Academic Press, 1980Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keeney R, Lathrop J, Sicherman A. An analysis of Baltimore gas and electric company’s technology choice. Oper Res 1986; 34 (1): 18–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keeney R, Von Winterfeldt D, Eppel T. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Mgmt Sci 1990; 36 (9): 1011–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kassirer J, Moskowitz A, Lau J, et al. Decision analysis: a progress report. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 275–291PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamilton, TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations