Advertisement

Does Society Place Special Value on End of Life Treatments?

  • Koonal ShahEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

There is a growing body of empirical evidence that members of the general public are willing to sacrifice aggregate health gains in order to direct resources towards those who are worst off in terms of the severity of their condition. This implies that the social value of a QALY accruing to a severely ill patient is greater than that of a QALY accruing to a patient who is not severely ill. A number of studies have examined whether the social value of a QALY varies according to how the QALYs are distributed, the characteristics of the patients receiving the QALYs or the characteristics of the health effect itself. This chapter describes the policy context in relation to the social value of a QALY in the UK, focusing on the way in which NICE appraises life-extending end of life treatments. It presents a summary of recent UK and non-UK studies examining priority-setting preferences regarding end of life treatments, before noting some of the discussion points arising from the evidence and finishing with recommendations for future research.

Keywords

National Health Service Discrete Choice Experiment Life Extension Short Life Expectancy Appraisal Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the contributions of Aki Tsuchiya and Allan Wailoo, who provided comments on draft versions of this book chapter. I would also like to thank Rachel Baker, Mark Pennington, Jose Luis Pinto Prades and Chris Skedgel for their suggestions and clarifications.

References

  1. 1.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Culyer AJ (1997) Maximising the health of the whole community. In: New B (ed) Rationing: talk and action in health care. BMJ/King’s Fund, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A (2005) QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 14:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    NICE (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of Health (2003) Tackling health inequalities: a programme for action. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams A (1996) QALYs and ethics: a health economist’s perspective. Soc Sci Med 43(12):1795–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NICE (2008) Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance, 2nd edn. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ (2004) National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 329:224–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shah KK (2009) Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 93:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abel Olsen J (2013) Priority preferences: “end of life” does not matter, but total life does. Value Health 16(6):1063–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker R, McHugh N, Mason H, Currie G, Donaldson C (2011) Valuing end of life technologies, investigating the existence of a ‘cancer premium’ and methodological questions for health economics virtuous. Paper presented at the Health Economists’ Study Group meeting, Bangor, 29 June–1 July 2011Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Linley WG, Hughes DA (2013) Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value‐based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross‐sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ 22(8):948–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pennington M, Baker R, Brouwer W, Mason H, Donaldson C, The EuroVaQ Team (2015) Comparing WTP values of different types of QALY gain elicited from the general public. Health Econ 24(3):280–293Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinto-Prades JL, Sanchez-Martinez FI, Corbacho B, Baker R (2014) Valuing QALYs at the end of life. Soc Sci Med 113:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rowen D, Brazier J, Mukuria C, Keetharuth A, Risa Hole A, Tsuchiya A, Whyte S, Shackley P (2014) Update: eliciting societal preferences for weighting QALYs according to burden of illness, size of gain and end of life. EEPRU Research Report. Universities of Sheffield and YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ (2014) Valuing health at the end of life: an empirical study of public preferences. Eur J Health Econ 15:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah K, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo A (2015) Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med 124:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skedgel C, Wailoo A, Akehurst R (2015) Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of healthcare resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making 35:94–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    NICE (2009) Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NICE (2009) End of life treatments: summary response to consultation. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    NICE (2009) Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. Revised in July 2009. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rawlins M, Barnett D, Stevens A (2010) Pharmacoeconomics: NICE’s approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol 70(3):346–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins M, Latimer N (2013) NICE’s end of life decision making scheme: impact on population health. BMJ 346:f1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shah KK, Cookson R, Culyer AJ, Littlejohns P (2013) NICE’s social value judgements about equity in health and health care. Health Econ Policy Law 8(2):145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trowman R, Chung H, Longson C, Littlejohns P, Clark P (2011) The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and its role in assessing the value of new cancer treatments in England and Wales. Clin Cancer Res 17:4930–4935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scottish Government (2013) Response to the Health and Sport Committee inquiry into access to new medicines. Available via: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_HealthandSportCommittee/Inquiries/Scottish_Government_Response_-_Access_into_New_Medicines.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2015
  27. 27.
    Green C (2011) Looking for the ‘values’ to inform value-based pricing: a review of the empirical ethics (equity) evidence! Paper presented at the Health Economists’ Study Group meeting, Bangor, 29 June–1 July 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NICE (2014) Value based assessment of health technologies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwappach DLB (2002) Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect 5:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Health EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations