Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:31:25.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

PAUL DOLAN
PAUL DOLAN*
Affiliation:
Tanaka Business School, Imperial College, London, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Paul Dolan, Professor of Economics, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK. Email: paul.dolan@imperial.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most health economists recommend that improvements in health be valued by asking members of the general public to imagine themselves in different states of health and then to think about how many years of life they would give up or what risk of death they would be willing to accept in order to be in full health. In this paper, I argue that preferences are not a very good guide to future experiences and a more suitable way to value health is to ask people in different states of health how they think and feel about their lives. Valuing health in this way may result in greater priority being given to mental health services. Whatever the precise implications, it is my contention that it is much better to ration health care according to real experiences rather than according to hypothetical preferences.

Type
Debate
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 69 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brazier, J., Roberts, J. and Deverill, M. (1999), ‘The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36’, Journal of Health Economics, 21(2): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (1993), ‘Qalys’, Journal of Public Economics, 50: 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dar, R., Ariely, D. and Frenk, H. (1995), ‘The effect of past injury on pain threshold and tolerance’, Pain, 60: 189–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, P. (1997), ‘Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states’, Medical Care, 11: 1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P. (2000), ‘The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care’, in Culver, A. J. and Newhouse, J. P. (eds), Handbook of Health Economics, Vol. I, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, pp. 1724–1760.Google Scholar
Dolan, P. (2007), ‘Finding a NICEr way to value health: from hypothetical preferences to real experiences’, Social Market Foundation.Google Scholar
Dolan, P. and Kahneman, D. (2008), ‘Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health’, Economic Journal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T. and White, M. (2008), ‘Do we really know what makes us happy: a review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being’, Journal of Economic Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P. and White, M. (2006), ‘Dynamic well-being: connecting what we anticipate with what we experience’, Social Indicators Research, 75(2): 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P., Shaw, R.Tsuchiya, A. and Williams, A. (2005), ‘QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature’, Health Economics, 14(2): 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. T. and Wilson, T. D. (2000), ‘Miswanting: some problems in the forecasting of future affective states’, in Forgas, J. (ed.), Thinking and Feeling: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. (1996), ‘Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods’, Social Choice and Welfare, 14: 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. and Sarin, R. (1997), ‘Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 375–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B.Schkade, D. A.Schwarz, N. and Stone, A. A. (2004), ‘Toward national well-being accounts’, American Economic Review, 94(2): 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprangers, M. A. G. and Schwartz, C. E. (1999), ‘Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model’, Social Science and Medicine, 48(11): 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G.Hershey, J.Baron, J.Mohr, T.Asch, D. A. and Jepson, C. (2001), ‘Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion?’, Medical Decision Making, 21: 190–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Wit, G. A., Busschbach, J. and De Charro, F. (2000), ‘Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?’, Health Economics, 9(2): 109–126.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed