Linda M de Vries, Werner B F Brouwer, Pieter H M van Baal
{"title":"在质量调整生命年的支付意愿中,健康以外的益处。","authors":"Linda M de Vries, Werner B F Brouwer, Pieter H M van Baal","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adopting a societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires including all societal costs and benefits even if they fall outside of the realm of health and healthcare. While some benefits are not explicitly included, they might be implicitly included when people value quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in monetary terms. An example is utility of consumption (UoC) which has played a crucial role in discussions regarding the welfare economic underpinnings of CEA. This study investigates whether people consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs monetarily and the influence of inclusion on this value. A Willingness to Pay (WTP) experiment was administered among the general public in which people were asked to assign monetary values to QALYs. Our results show that (stated) UoC increases with quality of life but that instructing people to consider UoC does not impact their monetary valuation of the QALY. Furthermore, many respondents consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs but the impact on the monetary value of a QALY is limited. These findings suggest that these elements are currently not (adequately) captured in CEA. Findings also illustrate that it is difficult to isolate health from non-health benefits and to consistently capture these in CEA. With that, reconciling CEA with welfare economics remains challenging.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benefits beyond health in the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year.\",\"authors\":\"Linda M de Vries, Werner B F Brouwer, Pieter H M van Baal\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Adopting a societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires including all societal costs and benefits even if they fall outside of the realm of health and healthcare. While some benefits are not explicitly included, they might be implicitly included when people value quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in monetary terms. An example is utility of consumption (UoC) which has played a crucial role in discussions regarding the welfare economic underpinnings of CEA. This study investigates whether people consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs monetarily and the influence of inclusion on this value. A Willingness to Pay (WTP) experiment was administered among the general public in which people were asked to assign monetary values to QALYs. Our results show that (stated) UoC increases with quality of life but that instructing people to consider UoC does not impact their monetary valuation of the QALY. Furthermore, many respondents consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs but the impact on the monetary value of a QALY is limited. These findings suggest that these elements are currently not (adequately) captured in CEA. Findings also illustrate that it is difficult to isolate health from non-health benefits and to consistently capture these in CEA. With that, reconciling CEA with welfare economics remains challenging.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01726-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在成本效益分析(CEA)中采用社会视角,需要将所有社会成本和效益纳入其中,即使这些成本和效益不属于健康和医疗保健领域。虽然有些效益没有明确包括在内,但当人们以货币形式对质量调整生命年(QALYs)进行估价时,这些效益可能会被隐含地包括在内。消费效用(UoC)就是一个例子,它在有关 CEA 的福利经济基础的讨论中发挥了至关重要的作用。本研究调查了人们在对 QALYs 进行货币估值时,是否考虑了健康以外的因素,以及包容性对这一估值的影响。我们在公众中进行了一项支付意愿(WTP)实验,要求人们为 QALYs 赋予货币价值。我们的结果表明,(声明的)UoC 会随着生活质量的提高而增加,但让人们考虑 UoC 并不会影响他们对 QALY 的货币估值。此外,许多受访者在评估 QALY 时会考虑健康以外的因素,但对 QALY 货币价值的影响有限。这些调查结果表明,目前的 CEA 并没有(充分)考虑这些因素。研究结果还表明,很难将健康效益与非健康效益区分开来,也很难在 CEA 中持续反映这些效益。因此,将成本效益分析与福利经济学相协调仍具有挑战性。
Benefits beyond health in the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year.
Adopting a societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires including all societal costs and benefits even if they fall outside of the realm of health and healthcare. While some benefits are not explicitly included, they might be implicitly included when people value quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in monetary terms. An example is utility of consumption (UoC) which has played a crucial role in discussions regarding the welfare economic underpinnings of CEA. This study investigates whether people consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs monetarily and the influence of inclusion on this value. A Willingness to Pay (WTP) experiment was administered among the general public in which people were asked to assign monetary values to QALYs. Our results show that (stated) UoC increases with quality of life but that instructing people to consider UoC does not impact their monetary valuation of the QALY. Furthermore, many respondents consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs but the impact on the monetary value of a QALY is limited. These findings suggest that these elements are currently not (adequately) captured in CEA. Findings also illustrate that it is difficult to isolate health from non-health benefits and to consistently capture these in CEA. With that, reconciling CEA with welfare economics remains challenging.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ