Abstract

Evidence has accumulated documenting loss aversion for monetary and, recently, for health outcomes—meaning that, generally, losses carry more weight than equally sized gains. In the conventional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) models, which comprise utility for quality and length of life, loss aversion is not taken into account. When measuring elements of the QALY model, commonly, the (implicit) assumption is that utility for length and quality of life are independent. First attempts to quantify loss aversion for QALYs typically measured loss aversion in the context of life duration, keeping quality of life constant (or vice versa). However, given that QALYs are multi-attribute utilities, it may be possible that the degree of loss aversion is dependent on, or inseparable from, quality of life and non-constant. We test this assumption using non-parametric methodology to quantify loss aversion, under different levels of quality of life. We measure utility of life duration for four health states within subjects, and present the results of a robustness test of loss aversion within the QALY model. We find loss aversion coefficients to be stable at the aggregate level, albeit with considerable heterogeneity at the individual level. Implications for applied work on prospect theory within health economics are discussed.

Highlights

  • Like other decisions, medical decisions often involve tradeoffs between gains and losses in different domains

  • Utilities are often defined as a product of these two attributes, jointly comprising Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs)

  • We compared differences between health states using omnibus tests, Friedman’s tests, which are robust against the violations of normality typically observed for parameters under the definitions reported in “Box 1”

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Medical decisions often involve tradeoffs between gains and losses in different domains. Research in behavioral economics and psychology has established that in such trade-off losses typically carry more weight than gains of the same size. This sensitivity to losses is referred to as loss aversion [1, 3]. Subjects were asked to imagine that they would live until 70 years in a health state denoted as health state C. After becoming 70, they were instructed that they would contract a deadly disease, which would lead to a direct, painless death Their task was to compare two drugs and indicate their preferences between treatments given their health state C and the treatment options, which could be risky, or involve possible side-effects (i.e., losses of life)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call