Predicting Utility for Joint Health States: A General Framework and a New Nonparametric Estimator

Abstract

Measuring utility is important in clinical decision making and cost-effectiveness analysis because utilities are often used to compute quality-adjusted life expectancy, a metric used in measuring the effectiveness of health care programs and medical interventions. Predicting utility for joint health states has become an increasingly valuable research topic because of the aging of the population and the increasing prevalence of comorbidities. Although multiplicative, minimum, and additive estimators are commonly used in practice, research has shown that they are all biased. In this study, the authors propose a general framework for predicting utility for joint health states. This framework includes these 3 nonparametric estimators as special cases. A new simple nonparametric estimator, the adjusted decrement estimator, [U_ij = U_min - U_min (1 - U_i )(1 - U_j )], is introduced under the proposed framework. When applied to 2 independent data sources, the new nonparametric estimator not only generated unbiased prediction of utilities for joint health states but also had the least root mean squared error and highest concordance when compared with other nonparametric and parametric estimators. Further research and validation of this new estimator are needed.

Keywords

cost-effectiveness analysis health-related quality of life utilities adjusted decrement estimator joint health states comorbidity medical decision making EQ-5D.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Drummond MF , Sculpher MJ , Torrance GW , O’Brien BJ , Stoddart GL Cost-utility analysis. In: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2005 . p 137-209.

Siegel JE , Weinstein MC , Russell LB , Gold MR Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine . JAMA. 1996;276:1253-8.

Gold MR , Siefel JE , Russell LB , Weinstein MC Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

Boyd CM , Darer J. , Boult C. , Fried LP , Boult L. , Wu AW Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases. JAMA. 2005;294:716-24.

Sullivan PW , Ghushchyan V. , Wyatt HR , Wu EQ , Hill JO Productivity costs associated with cardiometabolic risk factor clusters in the United States. Value Health. 2007;10:443-50.

Fryback DG , Dasbach EJ , Klein R. , et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcome Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.

Sullivan PW , Lawrence WF , Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43:736-49.

Keeny RL , Raiffa H. Decision Making with Multiple Objectives. New York: Wiley; 1976.

Fu AZ , Kattan MW Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med Care. 2008;46:984-90.

10.

Dale W. , Basu A. , Elstain A. , Meltzer D. Predicting utility ratings for joint health states from single health states in prostate cancer: empirical testing of 3 alternative theories. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:102-12.

11.

Fu AZ On the issue of utility multiplication: predicting joint health-states utility . ISPOR Connections. 2009;15:4-5.

12.

Basu A. , Dale W. , Elstein A. , Meltzer D. A linear index for predicting joint health-states utilities from single health-states utilities. Health Econ. 2009;18:403-19.

13.

Llewellyn-Thomas HA Utility assessment techniques. In: Kattan MW , Cowen ME , eds. Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. p. 1165-70.

14.

Flanagan W. , McIntosh CN , Petit CL , Berthelot J. Deriving utility scores for co-morbid conditions: a test of the multiplicative model for combining individual condition scores . Popul Health Metr. 2006;4:13.

15.

EuroQol Group . EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.

16.

EuroQol Web site. Available from: URL: http://www.euroqol.org/web/users/language.php. 2008. Accessed 27 November 2008.

17.

Sullivan PW , Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:410-20.

18.

Shaw JW , Johnson JA , Coons SJ US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-20.

19.

Yu WW , Machlin SR An examination of skewed health expenditure data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). J Econ Soc Meas. 2005 ;30:127-34.

20.

Cowen ME , Miles BJ , Cahill DF , et al. The danger of applying group-level utilities in decision analyses of the treatment of localized prostate cancer in individual patients. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:376-80.

21.

Basu A. , Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and value of individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:112-27.

22.

Klein JP , Moeschberge ML Semiparametric proportional hazard regression. In: Klein JP , Moeschberge ML , eds. Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997. pp. 243-287.

23.

Lenert LA , Cher DJ , Goldstein MK , Bergen MR , Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Dec Making. 1998;18:76-83.

24.

Stewart ST , Lenert L. , Bhatnagar V. , Kaplan RM Utilities for prostate cancer health states in men aged 60 and older. Med Care. 2005;43:347-55.

25.

Elixhauser A. , Steiner CA , Whittington CA , et al. Clinical Classifications for Health Policy Research: Hospital Inpatient Statistics , 1995. Healthcare Cost and Utilization project, HCUP-3 research Note. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.

26.

Harris RA , Nease RF The importance of patient preferences for comorbidities in cost-effectiveness analyses. J Health Econ. 1997;16:113-9.