{"title":"Monetary valuation of one year in full capability and health based on demographics, health status, income and well-being.","authors":"M. Thema, Z. Beretzky, V. Brodszky","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2347647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nBudget constraints in health care systems have led to the popularity of Cost Effectiveness Thresholds (CET) to achieve efficient allocation of resources. The capability approach has been hailed for its potentially richer evaluative capabilities compared to the QALY in terms of thresholds. Extensive research, however, is still limited.\n\n\nRESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS\nThis study estimated the monetary value of a year in full capability (YFC) and compared it to monetary value of a QALY for the Hungarian population. Data was collected from a large, cross sectional, representative online survey on the adult Hungarian population. Applying the wellbeing valuation method, health, capability, and income were then regressed against wellbeing to estimate 'shadow prices' for one QALY and YFC controlling for gender, age, employment, education, marital and social support. To examine 'core' regression coefficients, a robustness check was conducted.\n\n\nRESULTS\nHealth (VAS) and capability (ICECAP-A) had a positive and significant effect on Subjective Well-Being. The monetary values of one QALY and one YFC were 39 459 EUR and 58 148 EUR respectively.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThese tools provide a systematic approach to determining 'compensating income' for certain illnesses, disabilities and levels of pain. The capability approach shown to be broader than the QALY.","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2347647","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Budget constraints in health care systems have led to the popularity of Cost Effectiveness Thresholds (CET) to achieve efficient allocation of resources. The capability approach has been hailed for its potentially richer evaluative capabilities compared to the QALY in terms of thresholds. Extensive research, however, is still limited.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This study estimated the monetary value of a year in full capability (YFC) and compared it to monetary value of a QALY for the Hungarian population. Data was collected from a large, cross sectional, representative online survey on the adult Hungarian population. Applying the wellbeing valuation method, health, capability, and income were then regressed against wellbeing to estimate 'shadow prices' for one QALY and YFC controlling for gender, age, employment, education, marital and social support. To examine 'core' regression coefficients, a robustness check was conducted.
RESULTS
Health (VAS) and capability (ICECAP-A) had a positive and significant effect on Subjective Well-Being. The monetary values of one QALY and one YFC were 39 459 EUR and 58 148 EUR respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
These tools provide a systematic approach to determining 'compensating income' for certain illnesses, disabilities and levels of pain. The capability approach shown to be broader than the QALY.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.