Background. Advocates argue that end-of-life (EOL) care is systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework. By definition, EOL care is short duration and not primarily intended to extend survival; therefore, it may be inappropriate to value a time element. The QALY also neglects nonhealth dimensions such as dignity, control, and family relations, which may be more important at EOL. Together, these suggest the QALY may be a flawed measure of the value of EOL care. To test these arguments, we administered a stated preference survey in a UK-representative public sample. Methods. We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand public preferences over different EOL scenarios, focusing on the relative importance of survival, conventional health dimensions (especially physical symptoms and anxiety), and nonhealth dimensions such as family relations, dignity, and sense of control. We used latent class analysis to understand preference heterogeneity. Results. A 4-class latent class multinomial logit model had the best fit and illustrated important heterogeneity. A small class of respondents strongly prioritized survival, whereas most respondents gave relatively little weight to survival and, generally speaking, prioritized nonhealth aspects. Conclusions. This DCE illustrates important heterogeneity in preferences within UK respondents. Despite some preferences for core elements of the QALY, we suggest that most respondents favored what has been called "a good death" over maximizing survival and find that respondents tended to prioritize nonhealth over conventional health aspects of quality. Together, this appears to support arguments that the QALY is a poor measure of the value of EOL care. We recommend moving away from health-related quality of life and toward a more holistic perspective on well-being in assessing EOL and other interventions.
Highlights: Advocates argue that some interventions, including but not limited to end-of-life (EOL) care, are valued by patients and the public but are systematically disadvantaged by the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) framework, leading to an unfair and inefficient allocation of health care resources.Using a discrete choice experiment, we find some support for this argument. Only a small proportion of public respondents prioritized survival in EOL scenarios, and most prioritized nonhealth aspects such as dignity and family relations.Together, these results suggest that the QALY may be a poor measure of the value of EOL care, as it neglects nonhealth aspects of quality and well-being that appear to be important to people in hypothetical EOL scenarios.
Keywords: end-of-life care; public preferences; quality-adjusted life year; well-being.
© The Author(s) 2024.