Measuring the Benefits of Healthcare: DALYs and QALYs – Does the Choice of Measure Matter? A Case Study of Two Preventive Interventions

Abstract

Background: The measurement of health benefits is a key issue in health economic evaluations. There is very scarce empirical literature exploring the differences of using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as benefit metrics and their potential impact in decision-making. Methods: Two previously published models delivering outputs in QALYs, were adapted to estimate DALYs: a Markov model for human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination, and a pneumococcal vaccination deterministic model (PNEUMO). Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom studies were used, where local EQ-5D social value weights were available to provide local QALY weights. A primary study with descriptive vignettes was done (n = 73) to obtain EQ-5D data for all health states included in both models. Several scenario analyses were carried-out to evaluate the relative importance of using different metrics (DALYS or QALYs) to estimate health benefits on these economic evaluations. Results: QALY gains were larger than DALYs avoided in all countries for HPV, leading to more favorable decisions using the former. With discounting and age-weighting – scenario with greatest differences in all countries – incremental DALYs avoided represented the 75%, 68%, and 43% of the QALYs gained in Argentina, Chile, and United Kingdom respectively. Differences using QALYs or DALYs were less consistent and sometimes in the opposite direction for PNEUMO. These differences, similar to other widely used assumptions, could directly influence decision-making using usual gross domestic products (GDPs) per capita per DALY or QALY thresholds. Conclusion: We did not find evidence that contradicts current practice of many researchers and decision-makers of using QALYs or DALYs interchangeably. Differences attributed to the choice of metric could influence final decisions, but similarly to other frequently used assumptions.

Long‐term cost‐effectiveness of a Patient Empowerment Programme for type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care

“…Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICER) between the PEP and non‐PEP groups were calculated by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in QALYs. The ICERs were compared with the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for a QALY according to the WHO guideline that interventions with a cost per QALY gained of less than 1 × GDP per capita (HK $359 996 or US $ 46 153 in 2017) would be considered highly cost‐effective …”

An Empirical Study on the Benefits Equity of the Medical Security Policy: the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS)

“…Second, the medical costs after the basic medical insurance is insured [28,29]. Most scholars have observed that participation in basic medical insurance does not significantly reduce the actual medical expenditure of the insured [30].…”

Reflecting the Health Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions Within Value Frameworks: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research

“…Therefore, comparing them requires the assumption that the quality of life associated with a health condition is equivalent to the level of disability it confers. 37 Health opportunity costs are relevant regardless of how the HCS is financed; they exist in systems that are primarily government funded as well as those that are primarily privately funded. When a new treatment displaces a treatment currently available in a government-funded HCS, health opportunity costs may manifest in a number of ways, such as the extension of waiting times for existing procedures.…”