Multi‐method approach to valuing health states: problems with meaning

Erik Nord, Paul Menzel and Jeff Richardson ()

Health Economics, 2006, vol. 15, issue 2, 215-218

Abstract: In an earlier article in Health Economics, Salomon and Murray argue that by applying maximum likelihood techniques to predetermined functional forms and to a data set where a number of health states are valued by means of four standard valuation techniques, underlying ‘pure’ valuations of health may be teased out, together with estimates of parametric relationships between these ‘pure’ valuations and valuations based on the four standard techniques. We argue below that ‘pure’ valuations of health are ordinal rather than cardinal and that the ‘pure’ values that result from the multi‐method approach give a false impression of being cardinal. They are therefore not usable as weights for life years. In the unlikely event that the authors should be able to demonstrate cardinality in ‘pure’ valuations of health, it must be possible to have subjects express these valuations directly, in which case there seems to be no need for the indirect multi‐method approach. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1063

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:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:2:p:215-218

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().