Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty

• Autorzy: Michał Jakubczyk
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technologies requires valuing health, an uneasy task, as confirmed by variability of published estimates. Treating the willingness-to-pay/accept (WTP/WTA) as fuzzy seems an intuitive solution. Based on this premise, I construct a framework allowing to compare multiple health technologies using choice functions. The final choice must be crisp, so I discuss various defuzzification methods and show that using indecisiveness point (IP) forWTP/WTA (the value the decision maker equally approves/disapproves) has desirable properties: satisfying the independence of irrelevant alternatives and not treating the Likert scale as interval. I suggest three approaches to infer about IP with Likert-based surveys in random samples (hypothesis testing, Bayesian or frequentist estimation). No difference between IPs for WTP/WTA is found, and an explanation of the WTP-WTA disparity is provided. Estimating IP results in stochastic uncertainty, and I show how to conduct sensitivity analysis in the framework and what new insight is gained. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA); Fuzzy sets; Sensitivity analysis; Consumer preferences; Willingness to pay (WTP); Willingness to accept (WTA)

PL

Analiza kosztów i korzyści (AKK); Zbiory rozmyte; Analiza wrażliwości; Preferencje konsumenta; Metoda gotowości do płacenia; Metoda gotowości do przyjęcia rekompensaty

• Czasopismo: Collegium of Economic Analysis SGH - Working Papers
• Rocznik: 2016
• Numer: nr 6
• Strony: 30

Twórcy

autor

Michał Jakubczyk

• Warsaw School of Economics, Poland

Bibliografia

• Andersson H. (2007)Willingness to pay for road safety and estimates of the risk of death: Evidence from a Swedish contingent valuation study. "Accident Analysis and Prevention", 39:853-865.
• Araki D., Kamae I. (2015) The Augmented Representation of the Cost effectiveness Acceptability Curve for Economic Evaluation of Health Technology. "Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences", 61(1):E9-E18.
• Bellavance F., Dionne G., Lebeau M. (2009) The value of a statistical life: a meta analysis with a mixed effects regression model. "Journal of Health Economics", 28(2):444-464.
• Billingsley P. (1999) Convergence of Probability Measures, 2nd ed. Wiley.
• Briggs A., Weinstein M., Fenwick E., Karnon J., Sculpher M., Paltiel A., on Behalf of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force (2012) 10 Model Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. "Value in Health", 15:835-842.
• Doucouliagos C., TD S., Giles M. (2012) Are estimates of the value of a statistical life exaggerated? "Journal of Health Economics", 31(1):197-206.
• Dubois D., Prade H. (1980) Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. New York: Academic Press.
• DubourgW., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G. (1994) Imprecise Preferences and the WTP WTA Disparity. "Journal of Risk and Uncertainty", 9:115-133.
• Dykstra R., Kochar S., Robertson T. (1995) Likelihood ratio tests for symmetry against one-sided alternatives. "Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics", 47(4):719-730.
• Efron B., Tibshirani R., (1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap, 1st ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Fenwick E., Claxton K., Sculpher M. (2001) Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. "Health Economics", 10(8):779-787.
• Fenwick E., O'Brien B., Briggs A. (2004) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. "Health Economics", 13:405-415.
• Garber A. (2000) Advances in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions. in: A.J. Culyer, J.P. Newhouse, (eds.) Handbook of Health Economics. Volume 1A, North-Holland, pp 181-221.
• Grosse S. (2008) Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. "Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research", 8(2):165-178.
• Horowitz J., McConell K. (2002) A Review of WTP/WTA Studies. "Journal of Environmental Economics and Management", 44(3):426-447.
• Hout B. van, Al M., Gordon G., Rutten F., (1994) Costs, effects and C:E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. "Health Economics", 3:309-319.
• Hultkrantz L., Svensson M. (2012) The value of a statistical life in Sweden: a review of the empirical literature. "Health Policy", 108(2-3):302-310.
• Jakubczyk M., Kamiński B. (2015) Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment. "Annals of Operations Research", DOI 10.1007/s10479-015-1910-9.
• Jakubczyk M. (2016) Using a fuzzy approach in multi-criteria decision making with multiple alternatives in health care. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making", forthcoming.
• Jakubczyk M., Kamiński B., (2010) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves-Caveats Quantified. "Health Economics", 19:955-963.
• Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsäter H. (2012) Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay. "Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization", 84:879-891.
• Koerkamp B., Hunink M., Stijnen T., Hammitt J., Kuntz K., Weinstein M. (2007) Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. "Medical Decision Making", 27:101-111.
• Lee C., Chertow G., Zenios S. (2009) An Empiric Estimate of the Value of Life: Updating the Renal Dialysis Cost-Effectiveness Standard. "Value in Health", 12(1):80-87.
• Lindhjem H., Navrud S., Braathen N., Biausque V. (2011) Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport, and health policies: a global meta analysis of stated preference studies. "Risk Analysis", 31(9):1381-1407.
• Matell M., Jacoby J. (1972) Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert-Scale Items? Effects of Testing Time and Scale Properties. "Journal of Applied Psychology", 56(6):506-509.
• Neumann P., Cohen J., Weinstein M. (2014) Updating Cost-Effectiveness - The Curious Resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY Threshold. "New England Journal of Medicine" 371(9):796-797.
• Ntzoufras I. (2009) Bayesian Modeling Using WinBUGS, 1st edn. John Wiley & 2 Sons, Inc.
• Obenchain R. (2008) ICE Preference Maps: Nonlinear Generalizations of Net Benefit and Acceptability. "Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology", 8:31-56.
• Orlovsky S. (1978) Decision-making with a fuzzy preference relation. "Fuzzy Sets and Systems", 1:155-167.
• Ramík J., Římánek J. (1985) Inequality relation between fuzzy numbers and its use in fuzzy optimization. "Fuzzy Sets and Systems", 16:123-138.
• Sadatsafavi M., Najafzadeh M., Marra C. (2008) Acceptability curves could be misleading when correlated strategies are compared. "Medical Decision Making", 28(3):306-307.
• Sen A. (1970) Collective Choice and Social Welfare, 1st ed. Holden Day.
• Severens J., Brunenberg D., Fenwick E., O'Brien B., Joore M. (2005) Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves and a Reluctance to Lose. "Pharmacoeconomics", 23(12):1207-1214.
• Smithson M. (1987) Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1st ed. Springer-Verlag.
• Tan-Torres Edejer T., Baltussen R., Adam T., Hutubessy R., Acharya A., Evans D., Murray C., (2003)Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost Effectiveness Analysis, 1st ed. World Health Organization.
• Viscusi W., Aldy J. (2003) The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World. "Journal of Risk and Uncertainty", 27(1):5-76.
• Whitehead A. (2002) Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials, 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• World Health Organization (2001) Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, 1st ed. World Health Organization.
• Zadeh L. (1965) Fuzzy Sets. "Information and Control", 8:338-353.
• Zhao J., Kling C. (2001) A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. "Economics Letters", 73:293-300.