Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States

Abstract

Background. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has called for an “off-the-shelf” catalogue of nationally representative, community-based preference scores for health states, illnesses, and conditions. A previous review of cost-effectiveness analyses found that 77% did not incorporate community-based preferences, and 33% used arbitrary expert or author judgment. These results highlight the necessity of making a wide array of appropriate, community-based estimates more accessible to cost-effectiveness researchers. Objective. To provide nationally representative EQ-5D index scores for chronic ICD-9 codes. Methods. The nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was pooled (2000–2002) to create a data set of 38,678 adults. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression methods were used to estimate the marginal disutility of each condition, controlling for age, comorbidity, gender, race, ethnicity, income, and education. Results. Most chronic conditions, age, comorbidity, income, and education were highly statistically significant predictors of EQ-5D index scores. Homoskedasticity and normality assumptions were rejected, suggesting only CLAD estimates are theoretically unbiased. The magnitude and statistical significance of coefficients varied by analytic method. OLS and Tobit coefficients were on average 60% and 143% greater than CLAD, respectively. The marginal disutility of 95 chronic ICD-9 codes as well as unadjusted mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentiles are reported.Conclusion. This research provides nationally representative, communitybased EQ-5D index scores associated with a wide variety of chronic ICD-9 codes that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gold MR , Siegel JE , Russell LB , Weinstein MC , eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Drummond MF . Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1997.

Bell CM , Chapman RH , Stone PW , Sandberg EA , Neumann PJ . An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:288–294.

Fryback DG , Dasbach EJ , Klein R , et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89–102.

Gold MR , Franks P , McCoy KI , Fryback DG . Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care. 1998;36:778–792.

Erickson P , Wilson R , Shannon I . Years of Healthy Life. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1995.

Tengs TO , Wallace A . One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38:583–637.

Sullivan PW , Lawrence WF Jr , Ghushchyan V . A national catalogue of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the U.S. Med Care. 2005;43:736–749.

Elixhauser A , Andrews RM , Fox S . Clinical Classifications for Health Policy Research: Discharge statistics by principal diagnosis and procedure. AHCPR Pub. No. 93-0043. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Policy and Research; 1993.

10.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Puf Documentation Files. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Available at: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/PUFFiles/H52/H52doc.htm. Accessed 10 November 2003.

11.

US Health Care Financing Administration . The International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification: ICD-9-CM. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1980.

12.

The EuroQol Group. Available at: http://www.euroqol.org/download/ref.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2003.

13.

McDowell I , Newell C . Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

14.

Shaw JW , Johnson JA , Coons SJ . U.S. valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43;203–220.

15.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Computing Standard Errors for MEPS Estimates. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed September 2003.

16.

Hwang W , Weller W , Ireys H , Anderson G . Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:267–278.

17.

Austin PC . Bayesian extensions of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:152–162.

18.

Powell J . Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econometrics. 1984;25:303–325.

19.

Maddala GS . Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999.

20.

Green WH . Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.

21.

Petersen D, Waldman D. The treatment of heteroscedasticity in the limited dependent variable model. Mimeo. November 1981.

22.

23.

The ICD-9 to CCC crosswalk is available in the Medical Conditions Public Use Files (MEPS HC-069) at www.meps.ahrq (appendix 3, p A3-1).

24.

Berkanovic E , Telesky C . Mexican-American, black-American and white-American differences in reporting illnesses, disability and physician visits for illnesses. Soc Sci Med. 1985;20:567–577.

25.

Stewart AL , Napoles-Springer A . Health-related quality-of-life assessments in diverse population groups in the United States. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II102–II124.

26.

Johnson TP , O'Rourke D , Chavez N , Sudman S . Cultural variations in the interpretation of health survey questions. In: Warnecke RB , ed. Health Survey Research Methods. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1996. p 57–62.

27.

Glick HA , Polsky D , Willke RJ , Schulman KA . A comparison of preference assessment instruments used in a clinical trial: responses to the visual analog scale from the EuroQol EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:265–275.

28.

Wu AW , Jacobson KL , Frick KD , et al. Validity and responsiveness of the Euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:273–282.

29.

Macran S , Weatherly H , Kind P . Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care. 2003;41:218–231.

30.

Feeny D , Furlong W , Torrance GW , et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113–128.

31.

Richardson J . Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med. 1994;39:7–21.

32.

Llewellyn-Thomas H , Sutherland HJ , Tibshirani R , Ciampi A , Till JE , Boyd NF . The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:449–462.

33.

Von Neumann J , Morgenstern O . Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1947.

34.

Torrance GW . Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.

35.

Luo N , Chew LH , Fong KY , et al. A comparison of the EuroQol-5D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2003;30:2268–2274.

36.

Bosch JL , Hunink MG . Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication. Qual Life Res. 2000;9:591–601.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB