Evaluation as institution: a contractarian argument for needs-based economic evaluation

Preferences as fairness judgments: a critical review of normative frameworks of preference elicitation and development of an alternative based on constitutional economics

Preference elicitation is widely used within health economic evaluations to inform coverage decisions. However, coverage decisions involve questions of social justice and it is unclear what role empirical evidence about preferences can play here. This study reviews the prevalent normative frameworks for using population-based preference elicitation and the criticisms they face, and proposes an alternative based on constitutional economics. The frameworks reviewed include a supposedly value-neutral framework of preferences as predictors of choice, preference utilitarian frameworks that aim to maximize preference satisfaction, and substantive consequentialist frameworks that aim to maximize happiness, health, or capabilities. The proposed alternative implements the idea that indices of social value are tools for conflict resolution, rather than tools for maximization. Preference elicitation is used for validating values generated by multi-criteria decision analysis results within representative processes of stakeholder deliberation.

MCDA-based deliberation to value health states: lessons learned from a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Health economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life.

METHODS

The one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH.