Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis

Christine McDonough and Anna Tosteson ()

PharmacoEconomics, 2007, vol. 25, issue 2, 93-106

Abstract: Preferences for health are required when the economic value of healthcare interventions are assessed within the framework of cost-utility analysis. The objective of this paper was to review alternative methods for preference measurement and to evaluate the extent to which the method may affect healthcare decision-making. Two broad approaches to preference measurement that provide societal health state values were considered: (i) direct measurement; and (ii) preference-based health state classification systems. Among studies that compared alternative preference-based systems, the EQ-5D tended to provide larger change scores and more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios than the Health Utilities Index (HUI)-2 and -3, while the SF-6D provided smaller change scores and less favourable ratios than the other systems. However, these patterns may not hold for all applications. Empirical evidence comparing systems and decision-making impact suggests that preferences will have the greatest impact on economic analyses when chronic conditions or long-term sequelae are involved. At present, there is no clearly superior method, and further study of cost-effectiveness ratios from alternative systems is needed to evaluate system performance. Although there is some evidence that incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds (e.g. $US50 000 per QALY gained) are used in decision-making, they are not strictly applied. Nonetheless, as ICERs rise, the probability of acceptance of a new therapy is likely to decrease, making the differences in QALYs obtained using alternative methods potentially meaningful. It is imperative that those conducting cost-utility analyses characterise the impact that uncertainty in health state values has on the economic value of the interventions studied. Consistent reporting of such analyses would provide further insight into the policy implications of preference measurement. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2007

Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-200725020-00003 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:25:y:2007:i:2:p:93-106

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725020-00003

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().