Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service.
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 prioritizing 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.
Richardson
Jeff R J
JR
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. jeff.richardson@buseco.monash.edu.au
McKie
John
J
Peacock
Stuart J
SJ
Iezzi
Angelo
A
D000328:Adult; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006296:Health Services / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D057240:Patient Preference / Q000523:psychology*; D011788:Quality of Life / Q000523:psychology*; D057566:Self Report; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D012945:Social Values; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors
Bioethics. 1993 Apr;7(2-3):224-33
11651535
Health Econ. 1999 Feb;8(1):25-39
10082141
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993 Fall;9(4):463-78
8288424
Int J Health Plann Manage. 1991 Jul-Sep;6(3):234-42
10116626
J Health Econ. 2006 Jan;25(1):170-2; discussion 173-4
16213617
Health Econ. 2004 Feb;13(2):171-81
14737754
Milbank Q. 1994;72(3):451-70
7935242
Med Decis Making. 1996 Apr-Jun;16(2):108-16
8778528
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1992 Oct;26(4):390-2
1432881
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001 Oct;1(1):85-92
19807511
Health Econ. 1998 Jun;7(4):307-12
9683091
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov;41(10):1429-37
8560311
J Health Econ. 2005 Jul;24(4):703-14
15960992
Health Policy. 2002 Aug;61(2):189-99
12088891
Med Decis Making. 1998 Apr-Jun;18(2):141-8
9566447
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):371-4
11491196
Transplant Proc. 1989 Jun;21(3):3437-9; discussion 3440-4
2741209
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jul-Sep;15(3):287-8
7564944
Health Econ. 1997 Jan-Feb;6(1):71-81
9142532
Health Policy. 1993 Aug;24(3):227-38
10128127
J Health Econ. 2007 Jul 1;26(4):785-99
17328979
J Med Ethics. 1987 Sep;13(3):117-23
3669036
J Med Ethics. 1993 Mar;19(1):37-42
8459438
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Oct;49(7):895-903
10468394
Health Econ. 1999 Dec;8(8):701-7
10590471
JAMA. 1993 Nov 24;270(20):2469-74
8230624
Health Policy. 2000 Feb;51(1):19-30
11010223
Health Econ. 2010 May;19(5):596-607
19459186