Value of Life Year and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: The Case of Poland

• Authors: Olimpia Markiewicz

Abstracts

EN

The objective of this article is to examine how people value two different attributes of Value of Life Year (VOLY): life expectancy and the quality of life. The results of the first VOLY estimations conducted in Poland are discussed and compared with Polish cost-effectiveness thresholds for medical treatments in the period 2008–2020. The Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) method was used to value two attributes of VOLY: increase in life expectancy and improvement in the quality of life. The VOLY research was conducted in two populations: general and dialysis. Depending on their current health status, people value increased life expectancy and improvement in health quality differently. In light of these results, the VOLY should be differentiated. Also in the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) indicator, the weights of the attributes of length and quality of life should be varied according to different states of health. A uniform cost-effectiveness threshold is not justified from the perspective of stated preferences. Cost-effectiveness thresholds based on demand-side values should be differentiated. Current Polish cost-effectiveness thresholds are overestimated compared to valuations based on stated preferences. The article presents the first estimations of two attributes of VOLY: life expectancy and the quality of life, carried out in Poland.

Keywords

EN

Cost-Effectiveness Threshold; Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE); Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY); Value of Life Year (VOLY); Value of Statistical Life (VSL)

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Central European Economic Journal
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 55
• Pages: 256-268

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Olimpia Markiewicz

• https://orcid.org/0000000307918482

References

• Bertram, M. Y., Lauer, J. A., De Joncheere, K., Edejer, T., Hutubessy, R., Kieny, M.-P., & Hill, S. R. (2016). Cost–effectiveness thresholds: Pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94(12), 925–930. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.15.164418
• Carson, R. (2012). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Culyer, A. J. (2016). Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care: A bookshelf guide to their meaning and use. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 11(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133116000049
• Desaigues, B., Ami, D., Bartczak, A., Braun-Kohlová, M., Chilton, S., Czajkowski, M., et al. (2011). Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators, 11(3), 902–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.12.006
• Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford university press.
• Friedman, H. S. (2021). Ultimate price: The value we place on life. University of California Press.
• Gallacher, K., Morrison, D., Jani, B., Macdonald, S., May, C. R., Montori, V. M., et al. (2013). Uncovering treatment burden as a key concept for stroke care: A systematic review of qualitative research. PLoS Med, 10(6), e1001473 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001473.
• Giergiczny, M. (2006). Wycena wartości statystycznego życia ludzkiego przy wykorzystaniu metody wyborów z eksperymentami. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 2, 42–56.
• Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
• Hutubessy, R., Chisholm, D., & Edejer, T. T. T. (2003). Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 1(1), 1–13.
• Jakubiak-Lasocka, J., & Jakubczyk, M. (2014). Cost-effectiveness versus cost-utility analyses: What are the motives behind using each and how do their results differ?-A Polish example. Value in Health Regional Issues, 4, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2014.06.008
• Johannesson, M., & Johansson, P. O. (1996). To be, or not to be, that is the question: An empirical study of the WTP for an increased life expectancy at an advanced age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00057866
• Markiewicz, O. (2008). Analiza opłacalności programów ochrony zdrowia na podstawie wyceny statystycznego życia i wyceny dodatkowego roku przeżycia w Polsce. Praca doktorska przygotowana pod kierunkiem prof. dr hab.Tomasza Żylicza, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych, Warszawa.
• McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, New York Academic Press, 105–142.
• McCabe, C., Claxton, K., & Culyer, A. J. (2008). The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(9), 733–744.
• Meyerhoff, J., & Liebe, U. (2006). Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics, 57(4), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.021
• O’Mahony, J. F., & Coughlan, D. (2016). The Irish cost-effectiveness threshold: Does it support rational rationing or might it lead to unintended harm to Ireland’s health system?. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0336-1
• Orlewska, E., & Mierzejewski, P. (2000). Polskie wytyczne przeprowadzania badań farmakoekonomicznych (projekt). Farmakoekonomika, 4(supl 1), 2–11.
• Orlewska, E., & Mierzejewski, P. (2003). Project of polish guidelines for conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in comparison to international health economic guidelines. The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC, 4(4), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-003-0185-2
• Schulman, K. A. (1991). Cost Effectiveness of Low-Dose Zidovudine Therapy for Asymptomatic Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection. Annals of Internal Medicine, 114(9), 798–802. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-798
• Thokala, P., Ochalek, J., Leech, A. A., & Tong, T. (2018). Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: the Past, the Present and the Future. PharmacoEconomics, 36(5), 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0606-1
• Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5(4), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300008461
• Torrance, G. W., & Zipursky, A. (1984). Cost-Effectiveness of Antepartum Prevention of Rh Immunization. Clinics in Perinatology, 11(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-5108(18)30920-5
• Vallejo-Torres, L., García-Lorenzo, B., Castilla, I., Valcárcel-Nazco, C., García-Pérez, L., Linertová, R., et al. (2016). On the estimation of the cost-effectiveness threshold: Why, what, how?. Value in Health, 19(5), 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.020
• Williams, A. (1985). Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed), 291(6491), 326–329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.291.6491.326 291(6491), 326–329.
• Woods, B., Revill, P., Sculpher, M., & Claxton, K. (2016). Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: Initial estimates and the need for further research. Value in Health, 19(8), 929–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.017
• Żylicz, T. (2014). Cena przyrody. Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i Środowisko.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ceej-2021-0019

Biblioteka Nauki

1964852