Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Apr;20(3):419-426. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-1008-9. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
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.
已有大量证据表明,人们在面对金钱和健康结果时会产生损失厌恶——也就是说,一般来说,损失的影响比同等大小的收益更大。在传统的包含健康质量和寿命的效用的质量调整生命年(QALY)模型中,并没有考虑到损失厌恶。在衡量 QALY 模型的各个元素时,通常的假设是,寿命和健康质量的效用是相互独立的。首次尝试量化 QALY 的损失厌恶时,通常是在保持健康质量不变(或反之亦然)的情况下,在生命持续时间的背景下衡量损失厌恶。然而,鉴于 QALY 是多属性效用,损失厌恶的程度可能取决于或不可分割于健康质量和非常数。我们使用非参数方法来检验这一假设,以量化不同健康水平下的损失厌恶。我们在受试者的四个健康状态下测量了生命持续时间的效用,并展示了 QALY 模型中损失厌恶的稳健性测试结果。我们发现,尽管在个体水平上存在很大的异质性,但损失厌恶系数在总体水平上是稳定的。本文讨论了在健康经济学中应用前景理论的意义。