Advocating a Paradigm Shift in Health-State Valuations: The Estimation of Time-Preference Corrected QALY Tariffs.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of nonproportional trade-offs in time trade-off exercises and the explicit incorporation of exponential discounting in health technology assessment calculations, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) tariffs are currently still established under the assumption of linear time preferences. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to introduce a general method of accommodating for nonlinear time preferences in discrete choice experiment (DCE) duration studies and to evaluate its impact on estimated QALY tariffs. METHODS: A parsimonious utility function is proposed that accommodates any discounting function and preserves linear time preferences as a special case. Based on an efficient DCE design and 1775 respondents from a nationally representative scientific household panel, preferences and QALY tariffs for the Dutch SF-6D were estimated while accommodating for nonlinear time preferences via exponential and hyperbolic discounting functions. RESULTS: When the discount rate was estimated directly, we found strong evidence of nonlinear time preferences (with an exponential and hyperbolic discount rate of 5.7% and 16.5%, respectively). When the discount rate was estimated as a function of health state severity, we found that years lived in better health states are discounted minus years lived in impaired health states. Finally, the best statistical fit was obtained when using a hyperbolic discount function, which resulted in smaller QALY decrements and fewer health states classified as worse than immediate death. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the relevance and even necessity of a paradigm shift in health valuation studies in favor of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs, with potentially important implications for health technology assessment calculations and regulatory decisions.

Future pandemics and vaccination: Public opinion and attitudes across three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Understanding public opinion and attitudes regarding vaccination is crucial for successful outbreak management and effective communication at the European level. METHODS: We explored national differences by conducting focus group discussions in The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Discussions were structured using concepts from behavioural models. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed that participants would base their vaccination decision on trade-offs between perceived benefits and barriers of the vaccine also taking into account the seriousness of the new outbreak. Except for those having chronic diseases, participants expected a low infection risk, resulting in a low willingness to get vaccinated. Information about the health status of cases was considered important since this might change perceived susceptibility. Participants displayed concerns about vaccine safety due to the limited available time to produce and test vaccines in the acute situation of a new pandemic. Swedish participants mentioned their tendency of doing the right thing and following the rules, as well as to get vaccinated because of solidarity with other citizens and social influences. This appeared much less prominent for the Dutch and Polish participants. However, Swedish participants indicated that their negative experiences during the Influenza A/H1N1 2009 pandemic decreases their acceptance of future vaccinations. Polish participants lacked trust in their national (public) health system and government, and were therefore sceptical about the availability and quality of vaccines in Poland. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants overall expressed similar considerations, important differences between countries stand out, such as previous vaccination experiences, the degree of adherence to social norms, and the degree of trust in health authorities.