Evaluating the consequences of rheumatoid arthritis

Patients and non-patients tend to attach different utility values to the state of suffering from specific illnesses. This observation naturally leads to the question whose utility values should be used as the basis in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Intuitively, one would presume that patients are better informed about the consequences of their illness, and public authorities should, therefore, use the patients’ utility values in CEA. Contrary to this presumption, it has been argued that society at large should determine which values are to be used and not the patients because, in the end, it is societal resources that are to be allocated. Against this background, we use data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that was completed by patients of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and non-patients to explore the discrepancies between the two groups' utility estimates for typical consequences of RA. Our results indicate that both groups attach remarkably similar part-worth utilities to the symptoms pain, fatigue, and functional limitations. However, non-patients significantly undervalue the ability to work when compared to patients.