Background.Determining whether a particular medical intervention is cost-effective requires that a threshold of cost per benefit gained be established. As debate continues over the appropriate threshold, we present measures of willingness to pay (WTP) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for own health and 2 hypothetical osteoarthritis scenarios.Methods.One hundred ninety-three persons, located through random digit dialing in Harris County, Texas, completed face-to-face interviews collecting demographic information and health preferences using visual analog scale, time tradeoff, standard gamble, and WTP methodologies.Results.The mean WTP/QALY for all methods was lower (range, $1221-$5690/QALY) than many estimates from revealed preference studies and lower than the oft-cited arbitrary cutoff of $50 000. WTP/QALY was highest when participants were judging their personal health improvements as opposed to hypothetical scenarios. There were some significant differences in WTP/QALY across elicitation methodologies for the same scenario. Demographic characteristics were not associated with WTP/QALY measures.Conclusions.The health states and improvements in health evaluated here do not contain a risk of mortality, unlike many situations in which WTP/QALY has been previously evaluated. The lower WTP/QALY values found here may indicate that the presence of a mortality risk reduction substantially increases stated WTP/QALY. Appropriate thresholds for cost-effectiveness may be dependent on the context of a situation, including risk of mortality.
Johannesson M, O’Conor RM. Cost utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy. 1997;39:241-453.
2.
Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al.Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:332-342.
3.
Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol. 1982;1:61-80.
4.
Ubel PA, Hirth R, Chernew M, Fendrick A.What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation?Arch Intern Med. 2003;163;1637-1641.
5.
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Destsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 1992;146:473-481.
6.
Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Relationship between utility values and willingness to pay in patients undergoing orthognathic treatment. Community Dent Health. 2000;17:92-96.
7.
Lundberg L., Johannesson M, Silverdahl M, Hermansson C, Lindberg M.Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol. 1999;141:1067-1075.
8.
Giesler R, Ashton C, Brody B, et al.Assessing the performance of utility techniques in the absence of a gold standard. Med Care. 1999;37:580-588.
9.
Souchek J, Stacks J, Brody B, et al.A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit. Med Care. 2000;38:1040-1050.
10.
Wagner TH, Hu T, Dueñas GV, Pasick RJ. Willingness to pay for mammography: item development and testing among five ethnic groups. Health Policy. 2000;53:105-121.
11.
Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M.Feasibility, validity, and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 1999;8:303-310.
12.
Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, Stoter G, de Haes JC. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:82-90.
13.
Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Hershey J, Baron J, Mohr T, Asch DA, Jepson C.Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health conditions because of a focusing illusion?Med Decis Making. 2001;21:190-199.
14.
Bradley CJ, Kroll J, Holmes-Rovner M.The health and activities limitation index in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:555-562.
15.
McAlister FA, O’Connor AM, Wells G, Grover SA, Laupacis A.When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients. CMAJ. 2000;163:403-408.
16.
Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS, Skeith K.Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:113-121.
17.
Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady. Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatology. 2001;28:648-656.
18.
Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al.Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project Approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:913-923.
19.
Euro Qol Group. Euro Qol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol. 1990;16:199-208.
20.
Arias E, Smith BL. Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2001. National Vital Statistics Reports 51(5). Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics; 2003.
21.
Damschroder LJ, Baron J, Hershy JC, Asch DA, Jepson C, Ubel PA. The validity of person tradeoff measurements: randomized trial of computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview. Med Dec Making. 2004;24:170-180.
22.
Baron J, Ubel PA. Revising a priority list based on cost-effectiveness: the role of the prominence effect and distorted utility judgments. Med Dec Making. 2001;21:276-287.
23.
Coley C, Christopher M, Li Y, et al.Preferences for home vs hospital care among low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1565-1571.
24.
Sloan FA, Viscusi WK, Chesson HW, Conover CJ, Whetten-Goldstein K.Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis. J Health Econ. 1998;17:475-497.
