Valuing Health States for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
This article reviews the general issues in valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis and the specific issues considered by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in its recent review of the methods of technology appraisal. The general issues are how to describe health, how to value health and who should provide the values for health. The specific issues considered by NICE included whether and what should be the reference-case instrument, what to do when there are no data using the reference-case measure, what to do when the reference-case measure is not suitable and how to judge when it is not suitable, how to review and synthesize data, and how to incorporate health-state utility values into cost-effectiveness models.
KeywordsReference Case Valuation Method Standard Gamble Full Health Technology Appraisal
This paper was initially prepared as a briefing paper for NICE as part of the process of updating the Institute’s 2004 Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. The work was funded by NICE through its Decision Support Unit (DSU), which is based at the universities of Sheffield, Leicester, York, Leeds and at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.
The author thanks colleagues at ScHARR (Julie Ratcliffe, Aki Tsuchiya, Roberta Ara and Allan Wailloo), members of the NICE DSU (Mark Sculpher, Chris McCabe and Tony Ades) and Louise Longworth for comments on earlier drafts. Any remaining errors are the author’s responsibility.
- 6.Dolan P. The measurement of health related quality of life for use in resource allocation in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000Google Scholar
- 7.International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]Google Scholar
- 8.HM Treasury. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO, 2004Google Scholar
- 11.Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
- 15.Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchyia A, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Over Active Bladder questionnaire. Value Health. In PressGoogle Scholar
- 17.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
- 21.Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1 (1): 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/con tent/1/1/12 [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Dolan P, Olsen JA. Distributing health care: economic and ethical issues. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 2002Google Scholar
- 29.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance [2nd edition: draft for public consultation]. London: NICE, 2007Google Scholar
- 30.Fitzpatrick R, Bowling A, Gibbons E, et al. A structured review of PROMs in relation to selected chronic conditions, perceptions of quality of care and carer impact. Oxford: National Centre for Health Outcomes Development, 2006Google Scholar
- 32.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE 2004Google Scholar
- 33.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Review of the guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice-.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/technologyap-praisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal jsp [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]Google Scholar
- 35.Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007Google Scholar
- 37.Stevens K. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric health related quality of life measure [08/04 HEDS discussion paper series]. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2008Google Scholar
- 38.US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville (MD): US EDA, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.htm [Accessed 2008 Jul 1]Google Scholar
- 40.Brazier J, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A. Review of methods for mapping between condition specific measures onto generic measures of health: report prepared for the Office of Health Economics. London: OHE, 2007Google Scholar
- 42.Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health. Epub 2008 May 16Google Scholar