Abstract
Adopting a societal perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires including all societal costs and benefits even if they fall outside of the realm of health and healthcare. While some benefits are not explicitly included, they might be implicitly included when people value quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in monetary terms. An example is utility of consumption (UoC) which has played a crucial role in discussions regarding the welfare economic underpinnings of CEA. This study investigates whether people consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs monetarily and the influence of inclusion on this value. A Willingness to Pay (WTP) experiment was administered among the general public in which people were asked to assign monetary values to QALYs. Our results show that (stated) UoC increases with quality of life but that instructing people to consider UoC does not impact their monetary valuation of the QALY. Furthermore, many respondents consider elements beyond health when valuing QALYs but the impact on the monetary value of a QALY is limited. These findings suggest that these elements are currently not (adequately) captured in CEA. Findings also illustrate that it is difficult to isolate health from non-health benefits and to consistently capture these in CEA. With that, reconciling CEA with welfare economics remains challenging.