Identifying Objects of Value at the End of Life

Chapter

Abstract

End-of-life care has a number of characteristics that make economic evaluation particularly challenging. These include proximity to death, the improbability of survival gain, individuals’ changing priorities, declining cognition and effects on close persons. In view of these particularities of end-of-life care, some researchers have determined that current ‘extra-welfarist’ approaches to defining do not adequately reflect well-being. As a result, suggestions are being made that would see the QALY approach either replaced or subject to significant redefinition. The purported goal of adopting alternative evaluation approaches is to extend the evaluative space ‘beyond’. The purpose of this chapter is to guide the definition of what should be included in the evaluative space in end-of-life care.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Alastair Canaway, Matthew Franklin, David Parkin and Jeff Round for valuable and timely discussion of the issues raised in this chapter and for comments provided on an earlier version. All views, errors and omissions are my own.

References

  1. 1.
    Round JA (2012) Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life? J Health Econ 31:521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coast J (2014) Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Normand C (2009) Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J Pain Symptom Manag 38:27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH (2008) Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 27:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Culyer AJ (1990) Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities, and the quality of life. Quality of life: perspectives and policies. Routledge, London, pp 9–27Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurley J (1998) Welfarism, extra-welfarism and evaluative economic analysis in the health sector. In: Morris L Barer, Thomas E Getzen, Greg L Stoddart (eds), health care and health economics: perspectives on distribution. Wiley, Chichester, pp 373–395Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sen A (2007) Capability and well-being. In: Hausman DM (ed) The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 270–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sen A (1999) Commodities and capabilities. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleurbaey M, Luchini S, Muller C, Schokkaert E (2013) Equivalent income and fair evaluation of health care. Health Econ 22:711–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P (2004) How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Econ J 114:641–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Culyer AJ (1989) The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 5:34–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L et al (2011) How should we define health? BMJ 343:d4163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flynn TN (2015) Where next for discrete choice health valuation – part one. Terry Flynn PhD. http://www.webcitation.org/6bwtEuQvW. Accessed 1 Oct 2015
  14. 14.
    Sen A (2001) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rawls J (2009) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rawls J (2001) The law of peoples: with, the idea of public reason revisited. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nussbaum MC (2001) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Birch S, Donaldson C (2003) Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the “extra” in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med 56:1121–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P (2008) Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med 67:1190–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsuchiya A, Williams A (2001) Welfare economics and economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire (eds.) Alistair, Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 27–28Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coast J (2009) Maximisation in extra-welfarism: a critique of the current position in health economics. Soc Sci Med 69:786–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coast J, Smith RD, Lorgelly P (2008) Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Health Econ 17:667–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cookson R (2005) QALYs and the capability approach. Health Econ 14:817–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coast J, Kinghorn P, Mitchell P (2014) The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress. Patient. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0080-1 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruger JP (2010) Health capability: conceptualization and operationalization. Am J Public Health 100:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, Janabi HA, Clemens S, Moody A, Coast J (2015) Scoring the ICECAP-a capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ 24:258–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Normand C (2012) Setting priorities in and for end-of-life care: challenges in the application of economic evaluation. Health Econ Policy Law 7:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Douglas H-R, Normand CE, Higginson IJ, Goodwin DM (2005) A new approach to eliciting patients’ preferences for palliative day care: the choice experiment method. J Pain Symptom Manag 29:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Janabi HA, Flynn TN, Coast J (2012) Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 21:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J (2006) Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med 62:1891–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sutton EJ, Coast J (2014) Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med 28:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stevens KJ (2010) Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference based generic paediatric, health related quality of life measure. Qual Health Res 20:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Janabi, Keeley T, Mitchell P, Coast J (2013) Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study. Soc Sci Med 87:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ (2008) Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 67:874–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J (2007) Best – worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gandjour A (2001) Is subjective well-being a useful parameter for allocating resources among public interventions? Health Care Anal 9:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chochinov HM (2011) Death, time and the theory of relativity. J Pain Symptom Manag 42:460–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Rowen D, et al. (2014) Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess 18. doi:10.3310/hta18090
  40. 40.
    Sugden R, Williams AH (1978) The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hurley J (2000) An overview of the normative economics of the health sector. Handb Health Econ 1:55–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Canaway A (2015) Capturing the impacts of end of life care on those close to the dying for use in economic evaluation. Retrieved from University of Birmingham eTheses Repository. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/6084
  43. 43.
    Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM (2013) Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ 22:258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brennan VK, Dixon S (2013) Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics 31:677–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Round J (2012) Death, time, and the theory of relativity: a brief reply? J Pain Symptom Manag 43:e2–e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sampson C (2012) Considering time perception. The Academic Health Economists’ Blog. http://aheblog.com/2012/07/10/considering-time-perception. Accessed 27 Aug 2015
  47. 47.
    Daniels N (1985) Just health care (studies in philosophy and health policy). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing, School of Medicine, Queen’s Medical CentreUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations