This paper discusses the inherent problems associated with applying dummy coding when including a fixed comparator in a discrete choice experiment, and seeks to illustrate the misinterpretations that may arise if the analyst is not aware of the problem. This note provides two examples of possible misinterpretations with dummy coding and how it is solved with the use of effects coding.

What is a QALY worth in monetary units? This paper presents the main arguments in the literature regarding the obstacles involved in establishing one unique willingness to pay (WTP) estimate for the value of a QALY. To directly translate QALYs into monetary units, and in this manner translate existing and forthcoming cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) to cost-benefit analyses (CBA), it is necessary that one unique WTP per QALY can be established irrespective of context-specific characteristics such as severity of illness, magnitude of health gain, patient characteristics, etc. Because CEA and CBA are two methods of economic evaluation that are based on two very different normative perceptions of the role of health versus other goods in society, the task of performing a linear translation from QALYs to WTP is theoretically unattainable. CBA is based on the welfarist perception that the welfare associated with health is measured by way of individual preferences for health outcomes relative to other goods in society. In contrast, CEA is based on the extra-welfarist notion, which focuses on maximising health and not welfare, and suppresses any variation across income/social groups in utility derived from improvements in health. Another obstacle to one unique WTP per QALY value is that marginal utility of income is non-constant, and a function of income level and possibly health status. When marginal utility of income varies across individuals as well as contexts, measuring the value of health in monetary units may result in valuations of health increments that are very different from valuations retrieved had another unit of measure been applied. In conclusion, from a theoretical point of view, establishing one unique WTP cannot be attained. Applying one sole WTP per QALY value will entail overriding individual preferences such as diminishing marginal utility of health and potential differences in the value of incremental health across population groups. However, one problem that can, and should, be overcome when seeking to establish a monetary value for a QALY is the problem of variance in the marginal utility of income. The importance of applying the appropriate perspective when formulating WTP questions to ensure that the marginal utility of income of the respondents equals that of the financiers of the costs invested to produce the health gains should not be overlooked.

No abstract

No abstract

In the HTAs one generally sees a great focus on the clinical aspect of health technologies, leaving the economic, the patient-related, and the organizational aspect much more unanalyzed. The Danish HTAs generally have a wider scope than HTAs produced in other countries and tend to focus more frequently on patient-related and organizational dimensions.

A willingness to pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted-life year (QALY) of DKK 88,000 was estimated on the basis of elicited preferences for health states. The WTP per QALY estimate presented here differs considerably from that implied in contingent valuation studies, suggesting that WTP for reducing risk of death is based on other preference structures than is ex post WTP for improvements in quality of life. Results further suggest that different preference structures may exist when respondents are faced with WTP questions in which case elimination of minor health problems are associated with negligible utility.

Economic evaluations generally fail to incorporate elements of intangible costs and benefits, such as anxiety and discomfort associated with the screening test and diagnostic test, as well as the magnitude of utility associated with a reduction in the risk of dying from cancer. In the present analysis, 750 respondents were interviewed and asked to rank, according to priority, a number of alternative screening programme set-ups. Focus was on colorectal cancer screening and breast cancer screening. The alternative programmes varied with respect to number of tests performed, risk reduction obtained, probability of a false positive outcome and extent of co-payment. Stated preferences were analysed using discrete ranking modelling and the relative weighting of the programme attributes identified. Applying discrete choice methods to elicit preferences within this area of health care seems justified by the face validity of the results. The signs of the coefficients are in accordance with a priori hypotheses. This paper suggests that large-scale surveys focusing on individuals' preferences for cancer screening programmes may contribute significantly to the quality of economic evaluations within this field of health care.

This study suggests that caregivers to care recipients with a mental and especially a combination of mental and somatic illnesses have a higher subjective caregiver burden compared with caregivers to care recipients with a somatic illness. Because the study is not representative of all caregivers, more research focusing on identifying and contacting informal caregivers is needed to confirm the result.