Economic evaluations of health technologies: insights into the measurement and valuation of benefits

Economic evaluations have been applied in the field of healthcare for several decades with the principle aim of improving the economic efficiency of resource allocation, i.e., help maximizing benefits from available (and constrained) resources. Broadly speaking, “economic evaluation is the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and consequences” (Drummond et al., 1997). Economic evaluations became reasonably well-accepted in the decision-making process within the systems of different countries because they offer a promise of a systematic and transparent framework for deciding which intervention - among alternative interventions - to fund from a restricted budget. That is, once efficacy and effectiveness have been established, decision-makers can decide between competing interventions based on their relative cost-effectiveness and thus maximize the aggregate (value of) health benefits attained

The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains

The questionnaire format applied in a CV study represents the way in which the WTP estimates are obtained. Payment scales are often used in CV studies as the questionnaire format of choice. The study summarized here analyzes the impact of the design of two payment scales (PS) on the monetary value of QALY gains. The scales differed in terms of their end-points, mid points, and coarseness. We judged the performance of the two PS against several indicators: the average WTP per QALY estimates, post-estimation uncertainty levels, the existence of mid-point concentration, and the dependency on end-points. Our results show that PS design influences respondents’ WTP values. The results also suggest that a more detailed scale with a more realistic range may help respondents to elicit values closer to their “true” WTP values, hence produce higher-quality outcomes. Further research and pretesting strategies are suggested to explore and minimize the effects of PS design on WTP estimates, which may ultimately increase the quality of WTP estimates

Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Background: To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains. Methods: We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models. Results: The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of th

Caring for and caring about: Disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect

Besides patients' health and well-being, healthcare interventions may affect the well-being of significant others. Such 'spill over effects' in significant others may be distinguished in two distinct effects: (i) the caregiving effect and (ii) the family effect. The first refers to the welfare effects of providing informal care, i.e., the effects of caring for someone who is ill. The second refers to a direct influence of the health of a patient on others' well-being, i.e., the effects of caring about other people. Using a sample of Dutch informal caregivers we found that both effects exist and may be comparable in size. Our results, while explorative, indicate that economic evaluations adopting a societal perspective should include both the family and the caregiving effects measured in the relevant individuals.Informal care Family effect Caregiving effect Economic evaluation

What Influences Patients' Decisions When Choosing a Health Care Provider?

Objective: To investigate what influences patients' health care decisions and what the implications are for the provision of information on the quality of health care providers to patients. Data Sources/Study Setting: Dutch patient samples between November 2006 and February 2007. Study Design: Discrete choice experiments were conducted in three patient groups to explore what influences choice for health care providers. Data Collection: Data were obtained from 616 patients with knee arthrosis, 368 patients with chronic depression, and 421 representatives of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Principal Findings: The three patients groups chose health care providers on a different basis. The most valued attributes were effectiveness and safety (knee arthrosis); continuity of care and relationship with the therapist (chronic depression); and expertise (Alzheimer's disease). Preferences differed between subgroups, mainly in relation to patients' choice profiles, severity of disease, and some background characteristics. Conclusions: This study showed that there is substantial room for (quality) information about health care providers in patients' decision processes. This information should be tailor-made, targeting specific patient segments, because different actors and factors play a part in their search and selection process

Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information

One possible source of hypothetical bias in willingness to pay (WTP) estimates is response uncertainty, referring to subject’s uncertainty about the value of the good under assessment. It has been argued that uncertainty can be measured using the post-valuation ‘certainty question’ that asks: ‘How certain are you about your stated WTP?’ and marks the degree of certainty on a quantitative or a qualitative scale. Research has shown that the self- reported certainty evaluations can help mitigate hypothetical bias and obtain increasingly accurate WTP estimates. These study reports present a simple test of reliability of post-valuation certainty assessment and then looks at the empirical evidence for clues regarding the general usefulness of certainty adjustment in mitigating hypothetical bias in WTP studies. We find that the post-estimation uncertainty scores are malleable, i.e., significantly correlated with entirely irrelevant information. We conclude that more robust evidence could justify the routine inclusion of certainty evaluation in WTP studies although in the meantime the interpretation of certainty- adjusted WTP values should be approached cautiously