| Title |
Beyond QALYs: Multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-017-0882-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erik Nord |
| Abstract |
The QALY is a useful outcome measure in cost-effectiveness analysis. But in determining the overall value of and societal willingness to pay for health technologies, gains in quality of life and length of life are prima facie separate criteria that need not be put together in a single concept. A focus on costs per QALY can also be counterproductive. One reason is that the QALY does not capture well the value of interventions in patients with reduced potentials for health and thus different reference points. Another reason is a need to separate losses of length of life and losses of quality of life when it comes to judging the strength of moral claims on resources in patients of different ages. An alternative to the cost-per-QALY approach is outlined, consisting in the development of two bivariate value tables that may be used in combination to estimate maximum cost acceptance for given units of treatment-for instance a surgical procedure, or 1 year of medication-rather than for 'obtaining one QALY.' The approach is a follow-up of earlier work on 'cost value analysis.' It draws on work in the QALY field insofar as it uses health state values established in that field. But it does not use these values to weight life years and thus avoids devaluing gained life years in people with chronic illness or disability. Real tables of the kind proposed could be developed in deliberative processes among policy makers and serve as guidance for decision makers involved in health technology assessment and appraisal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,660,989
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#299
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,252
of 323,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.