Sharing and the Provision of "Cost-Ineffective" Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analysis prioritizes services using cost, life-years, and the health state utility of the life-years. Nevertheless, a significant body of evidence suggests that the public would prefer more variables to be considered in decision making and at least some sharing of the budget with services for severe conditions that are not cost-effective because of their high cost. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether this preference for sharing persists for less severe conditions when both cost effectiveness and illness severity would indicate that resources should be allocated to other services. METHODS: Survey respondents were asked to divide a budget between two patients facing life-threatening illnesses. The severity of the illnesses differed and the price of treatment was varied. RESULTS: Sharing occurred in all scenarios including scenarios in which the illness was less severe and services were not cost-effective. Results are consistent with behavior commonly observed in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that sharing per se is important and that the public would support some funding of cost-ineffective services for less severe health problems.

Utility weights for the vision-related Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-7D instrument.

PURPOSE: To obtain utility weights consistent with the needs of economic evaluation for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-7D, a generic instrument created to increase the sensitivity of the measurement of quality of life amongst people with impaired vision. METHODS: Two extant instruments were combined, the Vision-related Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) and the AQoL-6D. Utilities were obtained from patients with visual impairment and from the general population using time trade-off (TTO) methodology. Dimensions were combined and an econometric adjustment used to eliminate the effects of instrument redundancy. Bias was tested by comparison of holistic TTO values with utility scores predicted from the AQoL-7D scoring formula. RESULTS: The AQoL-7D instrument consists of 26 items and 7 dimensions each with good psychometric properties. Their combination into a single instrument resulted in significant redundancy which was successfully eliminated. Utility formulae for both the public and patients produced bias-free estimates of the utility of holistic health states describing visual impairment. Results imply differing valuations of health states by the public and by people with impaired vision. CONCLUSIONS: The AQoL-7D can detect changes in health states affecting people with impaired vision which are likely to be overlooked by other generic instruments due to content insensitivity. The utilities it produces are generated using a "mainstream" methodology, the TTO. Quality-adjusted life year values based on the AQoL-7D may therefore be used for economic evaluation of programs.

The relevance of personal characteristics in health care rationing: what the Australian public thinks and why.

This article examines the preferences of the general public in Australia regarding health care resource allocation. While previous studies have revealed that the public is willing to give priority to particular groups of patients based on their personal characteristics, the present article goes beyond previous efforts in attempting to explain these results. In the present study, there was strong support among respondents for giving "equal priority" to people regardless of their personal characteristics. However, respondents did reveal a preference for married patients over single, for children over adults, for carers of children and the elderly, sole breadwinners, and good community contributors. Further, they would give a lower priority to those perceived as "self-harmers"­smokers, individuals with unhealthy diets, and those who rarely exercise. Variation in the answers according to broad economic and social beliefs across seven different categories ("factors") influenced the pattern of the public's attitudes towards rationing. The Principal Components Analysis (PCA) indicated that most of the items in our survey are associated with seven factors that explain or capture much of the variation. These relate to a patient's avoidance of self-harm behaviors (Safe Living), their Life Style (diet, exercise, etc.), their contribution to the community through caring for others (Caring), their talents (Gifted), their sexual behavior (Sexuality), their age and marital status (Family), and whether they are an Australian citizen or employed (Citizen). The strength of social preferences­e.g., how strongly respondents would "discriminate" against a recreational drug user or preference a person with a healthy diet­is related to the particular class of preferences.

Priority setting in health care using multi-attribute utility theory and programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA).

Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is becoming an increasingly popular tool in setting health service priorities. This paper presents a novel multi-attribute utility (MAU) approach to setting health service priorities using PBMA. This approach includes identifying the attributes of the MAU function; describing and scaling attributes; quantifying trade-offs between attributes; and combining single conditional utility functions into the MAU function. We illustrate the MAU approach using a PBMA case study in mental health services from the Community Health Sector in metropolitan South Australia.

Can we estimate the 'social' value of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve.

There is growing interest in estimating the 'societal' willingness to pay (WTP) for a quality adjusted life year (QALY) to help public health system decision-makers determine whether a health care programme should/not be undertaken. However, there is a lack of clarity in this debate concerning four core issues: (i) is 'social' WTP simply the sum of 'individual' WTP; (ii) will 'individual' WTP map directly into 'social' WTP; (iii) is 'personal' income the appropriate budget constraint; (iv) should WTP be adjusted for ability to pay? This paper outlines the relevance and importance of each of these issues in the hope of encouraging a wider debate on the core issues that empirical studies will have to explore to discover whether such a value may be obtained.