Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

Abstract

ObjectivesTime trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child’s perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals’ views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children. MethodsWe elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects’ TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO. ResultsThere are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.