 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. TABLE A-2 Without-Condition HRQL ranges, average health would remain constant at the value reported for the eldest age group. This approach means that the HRQL impacts for young children will be the same regardless of whether the comparison is to perfect or average health, since a value of 1.0 is used for “without condition” HRQL in both cases.7 Table A-2 presents the estimates of average population health used in this analysis for selected ages, for males and females combined. These estimates are provided for illustrative purposes; the case study calculations used the full range of estimates available for each age group. As is evident from the table, the estimates of average population health vary. This variation reflects several factors, including the differences in (1) the population surveyed to determine their health-related attributes; (2) the underlying valuation survey; and (3) the construction of indexes themselves. In combination, these factors generally lead to the highest average HRQL estimates under the EQ-5D and the lowest under the QWB. As expected, average HRQL declines with age under each index. The comparison of HRQL with and without the conditions of concern is complicated by the assumptions that underlie the approach used to assign and value attributes under each index. In these comparisons, we adjusted the values depending on the source of the “with condition” esti-
|
|
|||||||||||||||
