Direct valuation of health state among patients with chest pain: Does income level matter
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
There is still uncertainty over where to include the production loss caused by morbidity in cost-effectiveness analyses. This loss could be included as a cost; but if individuals take their own income into consideration when valuing health states, this would lead to double counting. The purpose of this study was to find out whether individuals’ incomes can explain their valuations of their own current health states.
The sample consisted of 156 patients (312 observations) admitted to hospital with chest pain (the FRISC II trial). These patients valued their own current health states by using the time trade-off method (TTO) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). They also answered the EQ-5D instrument and stated their monthly income. Income level was additionally controlled via their taxed income at the tax agency, together with their income generated from capital. Generalised estimation equations were used to test whether the EQ- 5D dimensions and monthly gross income could explain the variation in the valuations of the health states.
The results indicate that neither self-stated nor taxed income could explain the variation in the valuations made by TTO. However, self-stated income (but not taxed income) was a significant variable in explaining variation in the VAS valuations.
These findings support the inclusion of the production loss caused by morbidity in the analysis, as these costs are not, or at least not to any great extent, implicitly incorporated in the individuals’ QALY weights when TTO is used to value the health states. Using a VAS, some income effects may be included.
Outcome research, QALY, income, cost-effectiveness analysis
Economics and Business
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-16952OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-16952DiVA: diva2:175083