Is anchoring at ‘dead’ a theoretical requirement for health state valuation?

Christopher Sampson, David Parkin and Nancy Devlin

Health Economics, 2024, vol. 33, issue 9, 1929-1935

Abstract: Values that accompany generic health measures are typically anchored at 1 = full health and 0 = dead. Some health states may then be considered ‘worse than dead’ (WTD) and assigned negative values, which causes fundamental measurement problems. In this paper, we challenge the assumption that anchoring values at ‘dead = 0’ is necessary for quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. We summarise the role of ‘dead’ in health state valuation and consider three critical questions: (i) whether the measurement properties of health state values require ‘dead’; (ii) whether ‘dead’ needs to be valued relative to health states; and (iii) whether values for states WTD are meaningful or useful. We conclude that anchoring 0 at dead is not a requirement of health status measurement or cost‐effectiveness analysis. This results from reframing QALYs as the relevant unit of measurement and reframing values as being derived from QALYs rather than the reverse.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4863

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:33:y:2024:i:9:p:1929-1935

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 ().