Is anchoring at ‘dead’ a theoretical requirement for health state valuation?

Abstract

Values that accompany generic health measures are typically anchored at 1 = full health and 0 = dead. Some health states may then be considered ‘worse than dead’ (WTD) and assigned negative values, which causes fundamental measurement problems. In this paper, we challenge the assumption that anchoring values at ‘dead = 0’ is necessary for quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) estimation. We summarise the role of ‘dead’ in health state valuation and consider three critical questions: (i) whether the measurement properties of health state values require ‘dead’; (ii) whether ‘dead’ needs to be valued relative to health states; and (iii) whether values for states WTD are meaningful or useful. We conclude that anchoring 0 at dead is not a requirement of health status measurement or cost‐effectiveness analysis. This results from reframing QALYs as the relevant unit of measurement and reframing values as being derived from QALYs rather than the reverse.