OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to quantify quality-adjusted disease-progression profiles based on the willingness of older Americans to accept treatment-related risk of death or permanent severe disability in exchange for modifying the course of Alzheimer's disease (AD). AD is a progressive, fatal condition whose incidence is rising. Little is known about how the general public views the seriousness of the disease and what tradeoffs they would accept to modify its course. Data on hypothetical, but clinically relevant treatment tradeoffs can be used to construct quality-adjusted measures of disease-progression profiles. METHODS: A representative sample of U.S. residents aged 60 years and older completed an online survey that included a series of stated-choice trade-off tasks. Subjects chose between 10 pairs of hypothetical treatment alternatives, each including different 7-year AD disease-progression profiles and risks related to adverse events that would result in death or permanent severe disability. We used mixed-logit methods to estimate healthy-year equivalents for several clinically relevant disease-progression profiles. RESULTS: A total of 2146 subjects completed the survey. Using the mixed-logit estimates from the risk-benefit trade-off preferences , a typical 7-year disease progression of 3 years mild AD (u=0.73), 2 years moderate AD (u=0.53), and 2 years severe AD (u=0.28) has a mean healthy-year equivalence of 4.39 years. Using the same assumption above and assuming a utility for permanent severe disability of 0.32, a treatment with risks related to adverse events that prevents AD from progressing beyond the mild stage (7 years of mild AD) has a mean healthy-year equivalence of 5.71 years. CONCLUSION: Older Americans' risk-benefit trade-off preferences indicate they regard AD as a very serious condition and that therapies, which could delay worsening from mild AD to moderate and severe stages could yield increases in healthy-year equivalents.