In most societies resources are insufficient to provide everyone with all the health care they want. In practice, this means that some people are given priority over others. On what basis should priority be given? In this paper we are interested in the general public's views on this question. We set out to synthesis what the literature has found as a whole regarding which attributes or factors the general public think should count in priority setting and what weight they should receive. A systematic review was undertaken (in August 2014) to address these questions based on empirical studies that elicited stated preferences from the general public. Sixty four studies, applying eight methods, spanning five continents met the inclusion criteria. Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) and Person Trade-off (PTO) were the most popular standard methods for preference elicitation, but only 34% of all studies calculated distributional weights, mainly using PTO. While there is heterogeneity, results suggest the young are favoured over the old, the more severely ill are favoured over the less severely ill, and people with self-induced illness or high socioeconomic status tend to receive lower priority. In those studies that considered health gain, larger gain is universally preferred, but at a diminishing rate. Evidence from the small number of studies that explored preferences over different components of health gain suggests life extension is favoured over quality of life enhancement; however this may be reversed at the end of life. The majority of studies that investigated end of life care found weak/no support for providing a premium for such care. The review highlights considerable heterogeneity in both methods and results. Further methodological work is needed to achieve the goal of deriving robust distributional weights for use in health care priority setting.

In this article, we describe the gmnl Stata command, which can be used to fit the generalized multinomial logit model and its special cases.

The oft-applied assumption in the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in economic evaluation, that all QALYs are valued equally, has been questioned from the outset. The literature has focused on differential values of a QALY based on equity considerations such as the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the QALYs. However, a key characteristic which may affect the value of a QALY is the type of QALY itself. QALY gains can be generated purely by gains in survival, purely by improvements in quality of life, or by changes in both. Using a discrete choice experiment and a new methodological approach to the derivation of relative weights, we undertake the first direct and systematic exploration of the relative weight accorded different QALY types and do so in the presence of equity considerations; age and severity. Results provide new evidence against the normative starting point that all QALYs are valued equally.

Objectives: To elicit stated preferences of patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) for primary healthcare (PHC) facilities and to explore the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for facility attributes. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted through face to face interviews. The DCE survey was constructed by five attributes: type of service, treatment measures, cost, travel time, and care provider. Patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for facility attributes were analyzed using a mixed logit model, and interaction terms were used to assess preference heterogeneity among patients with different sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Patients placed different weights on attributes, depending on whether they perceived their health condition as minor or severe. For conditions perceived as minor, patients valued treatment measures (56.60%), travel time (32.34%) and care provider (8.51%) most. For conditions perceived as severe, they valued treatment measures (52.19%), care provider (38.69%), and type of service (7.30%) most. The WTP related to the change from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) service to Modern Medicine (MM) service was the largest for both severity scenarios. For conditions perceived as minor, patients would be willing to pay 102.84 CNY (15.43 USD) for a reduction in travel time to below 30 min. For conditions perceived as severe, WTP related to the change from general service to specialized service and from junior medical practitioner to senior medical practitioner, were highly valued by respondents, worth 107.3 CNY (16.10 USD) and 565.8 CNY (84.87 USD), respectively. Conclusions: Factors related to the provision of PHC, such as treatment measures, care provider and type of service were highly valued. The findings could contribute to the design of better PHC delivery, improve the participation of patients in PHC, and provide some evidence to promote shared decision-making.