Recommendations for Emerging Good Practice and Future Research in Relation to Family and Caregiver Health Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluations:A Report of the SHEER Task Force

BackgroundOmission of family and caregiver health spillovers from the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions remains common practice. When reported, a high degree of methodological inconsistency in incorporating spillovers has been observed.AimTo promote emerging good practice, this paper from the Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluation and Research (SHEER) task force aims to provide guidance on the incorporation of family and caregiver health spillovers in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. SHEER also seeks to inform the basis for a spillover research agenda and future practice.MethodsA modified nominal group technique was used to reach consensus on a set of recommendations, representative of the views of participating subject-matter experts. Through the structured discussions of the group, as well as on the basis of evidence identified during a review process, recommendations were proposed and voted upon, with voting being held over two rounds.ResultsThis report describes 11 consensus recommendations for emerging good practice. SHEER advocates for the incorporation of health spillovers into analyses conducted from a healthcare/health payer perspective, and more generally inclusive perspectives such as a societal perspective. Where possible, spillovers related to displaced/foregone activities should be considered, as should the distributional consequences of inclusion. Time horizons ought to be sufficient to capture all relevant impacts. Currently, the collection of primary spillover data is preferred and clear justification should be provided when using secondary data. Transparency and consistency when reporting on the incorporation of health spillovers are crucial. In addition, given that the evidence base relating to health spillovers remains limited and requires much development, 12 avenues for future research are proposed.ConclusionsConsideration of health spillovers in economic evaluations has been called for by researchers and policymakers alike. Accordingly, it is hoped that the consensus recommendations of SHEER will motivate more widespread incorporation of health spillovers into analyses. The developing nature of spillover research necessitates that this guidance be viewed as an initial roadmap, rather than a strict checklist. Moreover, there is a need for balance between consistency in approach, where valuable in a decision making context, and variation in application, to reflect differing decision maker perspectives and to support innovation

Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment

A source of debate in the field of health care priority setting is whether health gains should be weighted differently for different groups of patients. The debate has recently focused on the relative value of life extensions for patients with short life expectancy. However, few studies have examined empirically whether society is prepared to fund life-extending end-of-life treatments that would not meet the reimbursement criteria used for other treatments. A web-based discrete choice experiment was conducted in 2012 using a sample of 3969 members of the general public in England and Wales. The study design was informed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's supplementary policy for the appraisal of life-extending end-of-life treatments. The choice tasks involved asking respondents which of two hypothetical patients they would prefer to treat, assuming that the health service has enough funds to treat only one of them. Conditional logit regressions were used for modelling. Choices about which patient to treat were influenced more by the sizes of treatment gains than by patients' life expectancy without treatment. Some respondents appear to support a health-maximisation type objective throughout, whilst a small minority always seek to treat those who are worse off without treatment. The majority of respondents, however, seem to advocate a mixture of the two approaches. Overall, we find little evidence that members of the general public prefer to give higher priority to life-extending end-of-life treatments than to other types of treatment. When asked to make decisions about the treatment of hypothetical patients with relatively short life expectancies, most people's choices are driven by the size of the health gains offered by treatment

An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values

Objectives Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can be used to obtain latent scale values for the EQ-5D-Y, but these require anchoring at 0 = dead to meet the conventions of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. The primary aim of this study is to compare four preference elicitation methods for obtaining anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values. Methods Four methods were tested: visual analogue scale (VAS), DCE (with a duration attribute), lag-time time trade-off (TTO) and the location-of-dead (LOD) approach. In computer-assisted personal interviews, UK general public respondents valued EQ-5D-3L health states from an adult perspective and EQ-5D-Y health states from a 10-year-old child perspective. Respondents completed valuation tasks using all four methods, under both perspectives. Results 349 interviews were conducted. Overall, respondents gave lower values under the adult perspective compared to the child perspective, with some variation across methods. The mean TTO value for the worst health state (33333) was about equal to dead in the child perspective and worse than dead in the adult perspective. The mean VAS rescaled value for 33333 was also higher in the child perspective. The DCE produced positive child perspective values and negative adult perspective values, though the models were not consistent. The LOD median rescaled value for 33333 was negative under both perspectives and higher in the child perspective. Discussion There was broad agreement across methods. Potential criteria for selecting a preferred anchoring method are presented. We conclude by discussing the decision-making circumstances under which utilities and QALY estimates for children and adults need to be commensurate to achieve allocative efficiency

Proceedings of Patient Reported Outcome Measure’s (PROMs) Conference Oxford 2017: Advances in Patient Reported Outcomes Research

A33-Effects of Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Payments and Financial Distress on Quality of Life (QoL) of People with Parkinson’s (PwP) and their Carer

Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature

Background It is widely assumed that the principal objective of healthcare is to maximise health. However, people may be willing to sacrifice aggregate health gain in order to direct resources towards those who are worst off in terms of the severity of their pre-treatment health state.Objectives This paper reviews the literature on severity in the context of economic evaluation, with the aim of establishing the extent to which popular preferences concerning severity imply a departure from the health maximisation objective.Methods Data were obtained using a keyword search of major databases and a hand search of articles written by leading researchers in the subject area.Results The empirical evidence suggests that people are, on the whole, willing to sacrifice aggregate health in order to give priority to the severely ill. However, there remain unresolved issues regarding the elicitation and interpretation of severity preferences (and indeed popular preferences generally).Conclusions The use of severity as a priority setting criterion is supported by a large number of empirical studies of popular preferences. Further work is needed, however, to accurately estimate the strength of this support.Health care rationing Quality-adjusted life years Severity Health maximisation Public preferences

NICE's social value judgements about equity in health and health care

NICE’s social value judgements about equity in health and health car

Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology

In the valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L, adult respondents are asked to complete composite time trade-off (cTTO) tasks for a 10-year-old child. Earlier work has shown that cTTO utilities elicited in such a child perspective are generally higher than when adults take their own perspective. We explore how differences in time preference in child and adult perspectives could explain this effect. Furthermore, as cTTO valuation in a child perspective involves explicit consideration of immediate death for a child, we also consider how cTTO utilities could be affected by decision-makers lexicographically avoiding death in children. We report the results of an experiment in which 219 respondents valued 5 health states in both adult and child perspectives with either a standard cTTO or a lead-time TTO only approach, in which immediate death is less focal. Time preferences were measured in both perspectives. Our results suggest that utilities were lower when lead-time TTO, rather than cTTO, was used. We find large heterogeneity in time preference in both perspectives, with predominantly negative time preference. The influence of time preferences on utilities, however, was small, and correcting for time preferences did not reduce differences between utilities elicited in both perspectives. Surprisingly, we found more evidence for differences in utilities between adult and child perspectives when lead-time TTO was used. Overall, these results suggest that time and lexicographic preferences affect time trade-off valuation in child and adult perspectives, but are not the explanation for differences between these perspectives. We discuss the implications of our findings for EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation