This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fryback, D. G. Articles by Lawrence, W. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fryback, D. G. Articles by Lawrence, W. F., JR Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Dollars May Not Buy as Many QALYs as We Think:

A Problem with Defining Quality-of-life Adjustments

William F. Lawrence, JR, MD

The scale of health state quality that should be used to compute quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) ranges from 0 (death) to 1.0 (excellent health); this is called the "Q" scale. But many cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the literature use the upper anchor of the scale to denote only the absence of the particular health condition under investigation, and weight the disease state proportional to this endpoint; these are called "q" scales. Computations using q-scale health-state weights ignore the fact that the average patient is still subject to chronic and acute conditions comorbid with the condition being analyzed; the absence of a particular condition is not in general the same as excellent health, i.e., the Q scale is longer than a q scale. CUAs based on q scales yield 'qALYs." Incremental $/qALY ratios are generally lower than $/QALY ratios; in the example presented, $/qALY must be inflated by about 15% to yield $/QALY. Other CUAs correctly weight disease states using the Q scale, but erroneously assign a quality weight of 1.0 to absence of the disease in the CUA computations. The results of such analyses are called "NP-QALYs," as the correction factor to compute QALYs is not a simple proportional adjustment. The authors suggest that analysts doing cost-utility analyses without access to primary data from treated patients use average age-specific health-related quality-of-life weights from population-based studies to represent the state of not having a particular disease. Consumers of CUAs should closely examine the nature of the QALYs in any published analyses before making decisions based on their results. Key words: QALY; quality-adjusted life years; utility; quality-of-life assessment; cost-utility analysis; cost-effectiveness methodology. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:276-284)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 3, 276-284 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700303


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. T. King Jr, J. Tsevat, and M. S. Roberts Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences Med Decis Making, March 1, 2009; 29(2): 257 - 266. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. E. Bremner, C. A. K. Y. Chong, G. Tomlinson, S. M. H. Alibhai, and M. D. Krahn A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities Med Decis Making, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 288 - 298. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. J. Smith, A. E. Barnato, and M. S. Roberts Teaching Medical Decision Modeling: A Qualitative Description of Student Errors and Curriculum Responses Med Decis Making, November 1, 2006; 26(6): 583 - 588. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hanmer, W. F. Lawrence, J. P. Anderson, R. M. Kaplan, and D. G. Fryback Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores Med Decis Making, July 1, 2006; 26(4): 391 - 400. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. T. King Jr, J. Tsevat, and M. S. Roberts Preference-Based Quality of Life in Patients With Cerebral Aneurysms Stroke, February 1, 2005; 36(2): 303 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. T. King Jr., M. A. Styn, J. Tsevat, and M. S. Roberts "Perfect Health" versus "Disease Free": The Impact of Anchor Point Choice on the Measurement of Preferences and the Calculation of Disease-Specific Disutilities Med Decis Making, May 1, 2003; 23(3): 212 - 225. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. O. Tengs and T. H. Lin A Meta-Analysis of Utility Estimates for HIV/AIDS Med Decis Making, December 1, 2002; 22(6): 475 - 481. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. M. Egan QALYs or quackery? The quagmire of quantifying the cost of breathing J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2002; 123(3): 406 - 408. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. A. Glick, D. Polsky, R. J. Willke, and K. A. Schulman 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, August 1, 1999; 19(3): 265 - 275. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. J. O'Brien Health State Utility Anchors:: Being Clear on What "1" Means Med Decis Making, July 1, 1997; 17(3): 352 - 353. [PDF]