Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper has two objectives, first to review the relevant literature concerning the social importance of severity of pre-treatment condition, and second to present the results of a new analysis of the relationship between social value, individual assessment of health improvement and the severity of illness. The present study differs methodologically from others reported in the literature. The underlying hypothesis is that members of the public have an aversion to patients being in a severe health state irrespective of the reason for their being there, and that this aversion will affect the social valuation of a health program after taking account of the magnitude of the health improvement. This effect will be observable in a program which (compared to another) takes a person out of a severe health state—the usual case discussed in the literature—or in a program which (compared to another) leaves a person in a severe health state. The present study tests this second implication of the hypothesis. We present data consistent with the view that after taking account of health improvement, health programs are preferred which do not leave people in severe health states. Alternative explanations are considered and particularly the possibility that data reflect a social preference for individuals achieving their health potential. Both explanations imply the need to reconsider the rules for prioritising programs. In this analysis, Person Trade-Off (PTO) scores are used to measure social preferences (‘value’ or ‘social utility’) and Time Trade-Off (TTO) scores are used to measure individual assessments of health improvement and initial severity. Econometric results suggest that severity is highly significant and may more than double the index of social value of a health service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callahan, D.: Setting mental health priorities: problems and possibilities. Milbank Q. 72, 451–470 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen, B.J.: Utility measurement and the allocation of health care resources. Med. Decis. Making 15, 287–288 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell, A., Gillett, G.: Justice and the right to health care. In: Ethical Issues in Defining Core Services. The National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, Wellington (1993)

  4. Dutch Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in Health Care. Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, Rijswijk (1992)

  5. Swedish Health Care and Medical Priorities Commission: No Easy Choices: The Difficulties of Health Care. Sveriges offentlige utredninger, 1993. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Daniels, N.: Just Health Care. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ubel, P.A., Arnold, R.M., et al.: Rationing failure: the ethical lessons of the retransplantation of scarce vital organs. JAMA 270, 2469–2474 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wikler, D.: Equity, efficiency, and the point system for transplant recipient selection. Transplant. Proc. 21, 3437–3439 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nord, E.: Helsepolitikere ønsker ikke mest mulig helse per krone (Health politicians do not wish to maximize health benefits). J. Norwegian Med. Assoc. 113, 1171–1173 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dolan, P., Green, C.: Using the person trade-off approach to examine differences between individual and social values. Health Econ. 7, 307–312 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ubel, P.A.: How stable are people’s preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 895–903 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J. Health Econ. 24, 703–714 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nord, E.: Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome lack of discussion of surprising finding: discussion. J. Health Econ. 25, 170–172 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: Severity of illness and priority setting: worrisome criticism of inconvenient finding? A reply to Erik Nord. J. Health Econ. 25, 173–174 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nord, E.: The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int. J. Health Plann. Manage. 6, 234–242 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nord, E.: The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 24, 227–238 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nord, E., Richardson, J., et al.: Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian Surveys. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 9, 463–478 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ubel, P.A., Spranca, M.D., et al.: Public preferences for prevention versus cure: what if an ounce of prevention is worth only an ounce of cure. Med. Decis. Making 18, 141–148 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prades, J.-L.P.: Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ. 6, 71–81 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ubel, P.A., Loewenstein, G., et al.: Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregons cost-effectiveness list failed. Med. Decis. Making 16, 108–116 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richardson, J.: Critique and some recent contributions to the theory of cost utility analysis. In: Working Paper 77. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (1997)

  23. Nord, E.: Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Cambridge University Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument: overview of the assessment of quality of life mark 2 project. In: Working Paper 144. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004a)

  25. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument: derivation of the scaling weights using a multiplicative model and econometric second stage correction. In: Working Paper 142. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004b)

  26. Richardson, J., Day, N.A., et al.: Conceptualising the assessment of quality of life instrument mark 2 (AQoL 2): methodological innovations and the development of the AQoL descriptive system. In: Working Paper 141. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004c)

  27. Peacock, S., Richardson, J., et al.: The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) II instrument. The effect of deliberation and alternative utility weights in a multi-attribute utility instrument. In: Working Paper 143. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne (2004)

  28. Richardson, J., Day, N., et al.: Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument. Aus. Econ. Rev. 37, 62–88 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwarzinger, M., Lanoe, J.-L., et al.: Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade-off responses. Health Econ. 13, 171–181 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nord, E., Undrum Enge, A., et al.: QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. doi:10.1002/hec.1497, 10.1002/hec.1497 (2009)

  31. Richardson, J., McKie, J.: Economic evaluation of services for a national health scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework. J. Health Econ. 26, 785–799 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Richardson, J., McKie, J., et al.: A critique of efficiency focussed economic evaluation in the context of a NHS: the case for empirical ethics, Research Paper 34. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne (2009)

  33. Harris, J.: Qualifying the value of life. J. Med. Ethics 13, 117–123 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daniels, N.: Rationing fairly: programmatic considerations. Bioethics 7, 224–233 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Scanlon, T.M.: Preference and urgency. J. Philos. LXXII, 655–669 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nord, E., Richardson, J., et al.: Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc. Sci. Med. 41, 1429–1437 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Abellan-Perpiñán, J.-M., Prades, J.-L.P.: Health state after treatment: a reason for discrimination? Health Econ. 8, 701–707 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ubel, P.A., Richardson, J., et al.: Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy 61, 189–199 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dolan, P., Cookson, R.: A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 51, 19–30 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nord, E.: QALYS: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain? Health Econ. (2009) doi: 10.1002/hec.1497. Accessed 3 July 2009

  41. Nord, E.: The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients. J. Med. Ethics 19, 37–43 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kymlicka, W.: Contemporary Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Green, R.M.: Health care and justice in contract theory perspective. In: Branson, R. (ed.) Ethics and Health Policy, pp. 111–126. Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pigden, C.: Logic and the autonomy of ethics. Australas. J. Philos. 67, 127–151 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nord, E., Pinto-Prades, J.L., et al.: Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 8, 25–39 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nord, E.: Health state values from multiattribute instruments need correction. Ann. Med. 33, 371–374 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nord, E.: Severity of illness versus expected benefit in societal evaluation of health care interventions. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 1, 85–92 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Jeff R. J. Richardson, John McKie & Angelo Iezzi

  2. Centre for Health Economics in Cancer, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Stuart J. Peacock

  3. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Stuart J. Peacock

Authors
  1. Jeff R. J. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John McKie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart J. Peacock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Angelo Iezzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John McKie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richardson, J.R.J., McKie, J., Peacock, S.J. et al. Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service. Eur J Health Econ 12, 163–174 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0249-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0249-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation