Yan Feng

Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England

Abstract A new version of the EQ‐5D, the EQ‐5D‐5L, is available. The aim of this study is to produce a value set to support use of EQ‐5D‐5L data in decision‐making. The study design followed an international research protocol. Randomly selected members of the English general public completed 10 time trade‐off and 7 discrete choice experiment tasks in face‐to‐face interviews. A 20‐parameter hybrid model was used to combine time trade‐off and discrete choice experiment data to generate values for the 3,125 EQ‐5D‐5L health states. Valuation data are available for 996 respondents. Face validity of the data has been demonstrated, with more severe health states generally given lower values. Problems with pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression received the greatest weight. Compared to the existing EQ‐5D‐3L value set, there are considerably fewer “worse than dead” states (5.1%, compared with over one third), and the minimum value is higher. Values range from −0.285 (extreme problems on all dimensions) to 0.950 (for health states 11211 and 21111). Results have important implications for users of the EQ‐5D‐5L both in England and internationally. Quality‐adjusted life year gains from interventions seeking to improve very poor health may be smaller using this value set and may previously have been overestimated.

The Influence of Cost‐Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) emphasises that cost-effectiveness is not the only consideration in health technology appraisal and is increasingly explicit about other factors considered relevant but not the weight attached to each. The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions and whether NICEs decision-making has changed over time. We model NICEs decisions as binary choices for or against a health care technology in a specific patient group. Independent variables comprised of the following: clinical and economic evidence; characteristics of patients, disease or treatment; and contextual factors potentially affecting decision-making. Data on all NICE decisions published by December 2011 were obtained from HTAinSite [www.htainsite.com]. Cost-effectiveness alone correctly predicted 82% of decisions; few other variables were significant and alternative model specifications had similar performance. There was no evidence that the threshold has changed significantly over time. The model with highest prediction accuracy suggested that technologies costing £40 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) have a 50% chance of NICE rejection (75% at £52 000/QALY; 25% at £27 000/QALY). Past NICE decisions appear to have been based on a higher threshold than £20 000-£30 000/QALY. However, this may reflect consideration of other factors that cannot be easily quantified.

Association between market concentration of hospitals and patient health gain following hip replacement surgery

Objectives To assess the association between market concentration of hospitals (as a proxy for competition) and patient-reported health gains after elective primary hip replacement surgery. Methods Patient Reported Outcome Measures data linked to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics in England in 2011/12 were used to analyse the association between market concentration of hospitals measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and health gains for 337 hospitals. Results The association between market concentration and patient gain in health status measured by the change in Oxford Hip Score (OHS) after primary hip replacement surgery was not statistically significant at the 5% level both for the average patient and for those with more than average severity of hip disease (OHS worse than average). For 12,583 (49.1%) patients with an OHS before hip replacement surgery better than the mean, a one standard deviation increase in the HHI, equivalent to a reduction of about one hospital in the local market, was associated with a 0.104 decrease in patients’ self-reported improvement in OHS after surgery, but this was not statistically significant at the 5% level. Conclusions Hospital market concentration (as a proxy for competition) appears to have no significant influence (at the 5% level) on the outcome of elective primary hip replacement. The generalizability of this finding needs to be investigated.

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets.

BackgroundThree EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets’ characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets.MethodsWe carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L.ResultsThe distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order.ConclusionsThere are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.

An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D

PurposeTo investigate the systematic differences in the self-reporting and valuation of overall health and, in particular, pain/discomfort between three countries (England/UK, Japan, and Spain) on the EQ-5D.MethodsExisting datasets were used to explore differences in responses on the EQ-5D descriptive system between Japan (3L and 5L), the UK (3L), England (5L), and Spain (5L), particularly on the dimension of pain/discomfort. The role of different EQ dimensions in determining self-reported overall health scores for the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) was investigated using ordinary least squares regression. Time trade-off (TTO) results from Japanese and UK respondents for the EQ-5D-3L as well as Japanese and English respondents for the EQ-5D-5L were compared using t tests.ResultsFor the EQ-5D-3L, a higher percentage of respondents in Japan than in the UK reported ‘no pain/discomfort’ (81.6 vs 67.0%, respectively); for the EQ-5D-5L, the proportions were 79.2% in Spain, 73.2% in Japan, and 63–64% in England, after adjusting for age differences in samples. The ‘pain/discomfort’ dimension had the largest impact on respondents’ self-reported EQ-VAS only for EQ-5D-3L in Japan. Using the EQ-5D-3L, Japanese respondents were considerably less willing to trade off time to avoid pain/discomfort than the UK respondents; for example, moving from health state, 11121 (some problems with pain/discomfort) to 11131 (extreme pain/discomfort) represented a decrement of 0.65 on the observed TTO value in the UK compared with 0.15 in Japan. Using the EQ-5D-5L, Japanese respondents were also less willing to trade off time to avoid pain/discomfort than respondents in England; however, the difference in values was much smaller than that observed using EQ-5D-3L data.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of between-country differences in the self-reporting and valuation of health, including pain/discomfort, when using EQ-5D in general population samples. The results suggest a need for caution when comparing or aggregating EQ-5D self-reported data in multi-country studies.

Incentives to Follow Best Practice in Health Care

There has been long-standing interest in the use of incentives to encourage delivery of high-quality health care services at the lowest feasible cost. Although it is clear that health care professionals have intrinsic incentives to deliver high-quality care to patients, there are significant variations in quality standards achieved in practice, indicating that a desire to see patients thrive is on its own insufficient to ensure uniformly high standards of care. It is important that the health system provides incentives to add to intrinsic motivation. OHE has published a Briefing by Karlsberg Schaffer, Sussex and Feng summarising the evidence on incentives that encourage providers of health care to follow guidance on best practice, particularly where that guidance requires the use of specific medicines or other health technologies. These incentives include monetary and non-monetary rewards.

Correction to: Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

The article Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets, written by Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F. Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on February 23, 2018 without open access.