Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns

Equity and economic evaluation of system-level health interventions: A case study of Brazil's Family Health Program

Distributional economic evaluation estimates the value for money of health interventions in terms of population health and health equity impacts. When applied to interventions delivered at the population and health system-level interventions (PSIs) instead of clinical interventions, additional practical and methodological challenges arise. Using the example of the Programme Saúde da Familia (PSF) in Brazil, a community-level primary care system intervention, we seek to illustrate these challenges and provide potential solutions. We use a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) approach to evaluate the impact of the PSF on population health and between-state health inequalities in Brazil. Data on baseline health status, disease prevalence and PSF effectiveness are extracted from the literature and incorporated into a Markov model to estimate the long-term impacts in terms of disability-adjusted life years. The inequality and average health impacts are analysed simultaneously using health-related social welfare functions. Uncertainty is computed using Monte Carlo simulation. The DCEA encountered several challenges in the context of PSIs. Non-randomized, quasi-experimental methods may not be powered to identify treatment effect heterogeneity estimates to inform a decision model. PSIs are more likely to be funded from multiple public sector budgets, complicating the calculation of health opportunity costs. We estimate a cost-per-disability-adjusted life years of funding the PSF of $2640. Net benefits were positive across the likely range of intervention cost. Social welfare analysis indicates that, compared to gains in average health, changes in health inequalities accounted for a small proportion of the total welfare improvement, even at high levels of social inequality aversion. Evidence on the population health and health equity impacts of PSIs can be incorporated into economic evaluation methods, although with additional complexity and assumptions. The case study results indicate that the PSF is likely to be cost-effective but that the inequality impacts are small and highly uncertain.

Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions: Does one size fit all?

BACKGROUND

Nutrition interventions have specific features that might warrant modifications to the methods used for economic evaluations of healthcare interventions.

AIM

The aim of the article is to identify these features and when they challenge the use of cost-utility analysis (CUA).

METHODS

A critical review of the literature is conducted and a 2 by 2 classification matrix for nutrition interventions is proposed based on 1) who the main party responsible for the implementation and funding of the intervention is; and 2) who the target recipient of the intervention is. The challenges of conducting economic evaluations for each group of nutrition interventions are then analysed according to four main aspects: attribution of effects, measuring and valuing outcomes, inter-sectorial costs and consequences and equity considerations.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

CUA is appropriate for nutrition interventions when they are funded from the healthcare sector, have no (or modest) spill-overs to other sectors of the economy and have only (or mainly) health consequences. For other interventions, typically involving different government agencies, with cost implications for the private sector, with important wellbeing consequences outside health and with heterogeneous welfare effects across socio-economic groups, other economic evaluation methods need to be developed in order to offer valid guidance to policy making. For these interventions, checklists for critical appraisal of economic evaluations may require some substantial changes.

Declaring Racism a Public Health Crisis in the United States: Cure, Poison, or Both?

Declaring racism a public health crisis has the potential to shepherd meaningful anti-racism policy forward and bridge long standing divisions between policy-makers, community organizers, healers, and public health practitioners. At their best, the declarations are a first step to address long standing inaction in the face of need. At their worst, the declarations poison or sedate grassroots momentum toward anti-racism structural change by delivering politicians unearned publicity and slowing progress on health equity. Declaring racism as a public health crisis is a tool that must be used with clarity and caution in order to maximize impact. Key to holding public institutions accountable for creating declarations is the direct involvement of Black and Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) led groups and organizers. Sharing power, centering their voices and working in tandem, these collaborations ensure that declarations push for change from the lens of those most impacted and authentically engage with the demands of communities and their legacies. Superficial diversity and inclusion efforts that bring BIPOC people and organizers into the conversation and then fail to implement their ideas repeat historical patterns of harm, stall momentum for structural change at best, and poison the strategy at worst. In this paper we will examine three declarations in the United States and analyze them utilizing evaluative criteria aligned with health equity and anti-racism practices. Finally, we offer recommendations to inform anti-racist public health work for meaningful systematic change toward decentralization and empowerment of communities in their health futures.

Economic evaluation of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Point-of-care tests for these infections facilitate testing and treatment in a single antenatal clinic visit and may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation and scale-up depends on understanding comparative effectiveness of such programmes and their comparative costs and cost effectiveness. This systematic review synthesises and appraises evidence from economic evaluations of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched using pre-determined criteria. Additional literature was identified by searching Google Scholar and the bibliographies of all included studies. Economic evaluations were eligible if they were set in low- and middle-income countries and assessed antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, and/or bacterial vaginosis. Studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. Methodological and reporting standards were assessed using two published checklists.

RESULTS

Sixteen economic evaluations were included in this review; ten based in Africa, three in Latin and South America and three were cross-continent comparisons. Fifteen studies assessed point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, while one evaluated chlamydia. Key drivers of cost and cost-effectiveness included disease prevalence; test, treatment, and staff costs; test sensitivity and specificity; and screening and treatment coverage. All studies met 75% or more of the criteria of the Drummond Checklist and 60% of the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, point-of-care testing and treatment was cost-effective compared to no screening, syndromic management, and laboratory-based testing. Future economic evaluations should consider other common infections, and their lifetime impact on mothers and babies. Complementary affordability and equity analyses would strengthen the case for greater investment in antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment by Pharmacists in Black Barbershops

BACKGROUND

In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively.

RESULTS

At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men.

Incorporating equity in infectious disease modeling: Case study of a distributional impact framework for measles transmission

INTRODUCTION

Deterministic compartmental models of infectious diseases like measles typically reflect biological heterogeneities in the risk of infection and severity to characterize transmission dynamics. Given the known association of socioeconomic status and increased vulnerability to infection and mortality, it is also critical that such models further incorporate social heterogeneities.

METHODS

Here, we aimed to explore the influence of integrating income-associated differences in parameters of traditional dynamic transmission models. We developed a measles SIR model, in which the Susceptible, Infected and Recovered classes were stratified by income quintile, with income-specific transmission rates, disease-induced mortality rates, and vaccination coverage levels. We further provided a stylized illustration with secondary data from Ethiopia, where we examined various scenarios demonstrating differences in transmission patterns by income and in distributional vaccination coverage, and quantified impacts on disparities in measles mortality.

RESULTS

The income-stratified SIR model exhibited similar dynamics to that of the traditional SIR model, with amplified outbreak peaks and measles mortality among the poorest income group. All vaccination coverage strategies were found to substantially curb the overall number of measles deaths, yet most considerably for the poorest, with select strategies yielding clear reductions in measles mortality disparities.

DISCUSSION

The incorporation of income-specific differences can reveal distinct outbreak patterns across income groups and important differences in the subsequent effects of preventative interventions like vaccination. Our case study highlights the need to extend traditional modeling frameworks (e.g. SIR models) to be stratified by socioeconomic factors like income and to consider ensuing income-associated differences in disease-related morbidity and mortality. In so doing, we build on existing tools and characterize ongoing challenges in achieving health equity.

Self-admission in the treatment of eating disorders: an analysis of healthcare resource reallocation

Background

Self-admission to psychiatric inpatient treatment is an innovative approach to healthcare rationing, based on reallocation of existing resources rather than on increased funding. In self-admission, patients with a history of high healthcare utilization are invited to decide for themselves when brief admission is warranted. Previous findings on patients with severe eating disorders indicate that self-admission reduces participants’ need for inpatient treatment, but that it does not alone lead to symptom remission.

Methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate if, from a service provider perspective, the resource reallocation associated with self-admission is justified. The analysis makes use of data from a cohort study evaluating the one-year outcomes of self-admission at the Stockholm Centre for Eating Disorders.

Results

Participants in the program reduced their need for regular specialist inpatient treatment by 67%. Thereby, hospital beds were made available for non-participants due to the removal of a yearly average of 13.2 high-utilizers from the regular waiting list. A sensitivity analysis showed that this “win-win situation” occurred within the entire 95% confidence interval of the inpatient treatment utilization reduction.

Conclusions

For healthcare systems relying on rationing by waiting list, self-admission has the potential to reduce the need for hospitalization for patients with longstanding eating disorders, while also offering benefits in the form of increased available resources for other patients requiring hospitalization.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02937259 (retrospectively registered 10/15/2016).

Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Priority-setting dilemmas arise when trade-offs must be made regarding the kinds of services that should be provided and to whom, thereby withholding other services from individuals or groups that could benefit from them. Currently, it is practically impossible for lower-income countries to provide dialysis for all patients with kidney failure; however, the fundamental premise of the human right to health, while acknowledging the current resource constraints, is the progressive realization of access to care for all. In this article we outline the rationale for priority setting, starting with the global goal of achieving universal health coverage, the prerequisites for fair and transparent priority setting, and discuss how these may apply to expensive care such as dialysis. Priority is inherently a value-laden process, and cannot be whittled down to technical considerations of clinical or cost effectiveness alone. Fair and transparent priority setting should originate from population health needs, be based on evidence, and be associated with ethical values or principles. This requires effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. Once policies are developed and implemented, good oversight is crucial to ensure accountability and to provide iterative feedback such that the goals of universal health coverage may be progressively realized.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of public health interventions with impacts on health and criminal justice: An applied cross-sectoral analysis of an alcohol misuse intervention

Cost-effectiveness analyses of health care programs often focus on maximizing health and ignore nonhealth impacts. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions from a narrow health care perspective would likely underestimate their full impact, and potentially lead to inefficient decisions about funding. The aim of this study is to provide a practical application of a recently proposed framework for the economic evaluation of public health interventions, evaluating an intervention to reduce alcohol misuse in criminal offenders. This cross-sectoral analysis distinguishes benefits and opportunity costs for different sectors, makes explicit the value judgments required to consider alternative perspectives, and can inform heterogeneous decision makers with different objectives in a transparent manner. Three interventions of increasing intensity are compared: client information leaflet, brief advice, and brief lifestyle counseling. Health outcomes are measured in quality-adjusted life-years and criminal justice outcomes in reconvictions. Costs considered include intervention costs, costs to the NHS and costs to the criminal justice system. The results are presented for four different perspectives: "narrow" health care perspective; criminal justice system perspective; "full" health care perspective; and joint "full" health and criminal justice perspective. Conclusions and recommendations differ according to the normative judgment on the appropriate perspective for the evaluation.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

CONTEXT

'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.

METHODS

This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses.

FINDINGS

Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Cost-Effectiveness of Offering Cervical Cancer Screening with HPV Self-Sampling among African-American Women in the Mississippi Delta

BACKGROUND

African-American women in the United States have an elevated risk of cervical cancer incidence and mortality. In the Mississippi Delta, cervical cancer disparities are particularly stark.

METHODS

We conducted a micro-costing study alongside a group randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy of a patient-centered approach ("Choice" between self-collection at home for HPV testing or current standard of care within the public health system in Mississippi) versus the current standard of care ["Standard-of-care screening," involving cytology (i.e., Pap) and HPV co-testing at the Health Department clinics]. The interventions in both study arms were delivered by community health workers (CHW). Using cost, screening uptake, and colposcopy adherence data from the trial, we informed a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the "Choice" and "Standard-of-care screening" interventions among un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta.

RESULTS

When each intervention was simulated every 5 years from ages 25 to 65 years, the "Standard-of-care screening" strategy reduced cancer risk by 6.4% and was not an efficient strategy; "Choice" was more effective and efficient, reducing lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 14.8% and costing $62,720 per year of life saved (YLS). Screening uptake and colposcopy adherence were key drivers of intervention cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering "Choice" to un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta led to greater uptake than CHW-facilitated screening at the Health Department, and may be cost-effective.

IMPACT

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an HPV self-collection intervention to reduce disparities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Immunotherapy Treatments for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Kidney cancer exerts significant disease burden in the United States and possesses a rapidly evolving treatment landscape. The expansion of novel systemic treatment approaches and the use of immunotherapy has been accompanied by increased costs over time. However, the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been fully assessed. The current study presents a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of immunotherapy-based treatment in the context of RCC. METHODS: A literature search utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken to find articles related to the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The inclusion criteria for articles were as follows: English, published between 1983 and 2020 and evaluated cost-effectiveness in any of the currently approved immunotherapies for RCC. Exclusion criteria included being a review article, commentary or editorial, as well as possessing no specific cost-effectiveness evaluation or analysis relevant to the current review. RESULTS: The current review identified 23 studies, published between 2008 and 2020, across 9 different countries. The studies identified tended to focus on patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC and examined the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy across various lines of treatment (first-line treatment (n = 13), second-line treatment (n = 8), and first-line and beyond (n = 2). Eight studies examined the use of interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha), with some reports supporting the cost-effectiveness of these agents and an equal number of studies demonstrating the opposite, with sunitinib often demonstrating superior cost bases. The majority, fourteen studies, included the use of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab), half of which found that checkpoint inhibitors were more cost-effective when compared to oral systemic therapies (sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib). DISCUSSION: Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors constituted the most frequently examined agents and were likely to be deemed cost-effective as compared to other treatments; although this often required higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds or healthcare systems that possessed more cost-constraints. These observations have clinical and health system applicability, with the ability to potentially reduce the cost of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic RCC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Implementation Science: a Research Agenda and Call for Wider Application

Purpose of Review

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help identify the trade-offs decision makers face when confronted with alternative courses of action for the implementation of public health strategies. Application of CEA alongside implementation scientific studies remains limited. We aimed to identify areas for future development in order to enhance the uptake and impact of model-based CEA in implementation scientific research.

Recent Findings

Important questions remain about how to broadly implement evidence-based public health interventions in routine practice. Establishing population-level implementation strategy components and distinct implementation phases, including planning for implementation, the time required to scale-up programs, and sustainment efforts required to maintain them, can help determine the data needed to quantify each of these elements. Model-based CEA can use these data to determine the added value associated with each of these elements across systems, settings, population subgroups, and levels of implementation to provide tailored guidance for evidence-based public health action. There is a need to integrate implementation science explicitly into CEA to adequately capture diverse real-world delivery contexts and make detailed, informed recommendations on the aspects of the implementation process that provide good value.

Summary

We describe examples of how model-based CEA can integrate implementation scientific concepts and evidence to help tailor evaluations to local context. We also propose six distinct domains for methodological advancement in order to enhance the uptake and impact of model-based cost-effectiveness analysis in implementation scientific research.

Toward universal health coverage in the post-COVID-19 era

All countries worldwide have signed up to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and have committed to the objective of achieving 'universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all'. During the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, advancement toward universal health coverage (UHC) will become more difficult for many countries, demonstrating that locally led priority setting is urgently needed to provide health services with appropriate financial protection to all. Because resources are limited and no national constituency can provide an unlimited number of services to their whole population in a sustainable manner, rationing and setting priorities for the selection of interventions to be included in a defined package of services is critical. In this Perspective, we discuss how packages of essential health services can be developed in resource-constrained settings, and detail how experts and the public can decide on principles and criteria, use a comprehensive array of analytical methods and choose which services to be provided free of charge. We illustrate these main steps while drawing on a recently conducted exercise of revising the national essential health services package in Ethiopia, which we compare with examples from other countries that have defined their essential benefits packages. This Perspective also provides recommendations for other low- and middle-income countries on their pathway to UHC.

Taking a local government perspective for economic evaluation of a population-level programme to promote exercise

BACKGROUND

In order to tackle the issue of physical inactivity, local governments have implemented population-level programmes to promote exercise. While evidence is accumulating on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, studies have typically adopted a health sector perspective for economic evaluation. This approach has been challenged as it does not allow for key concerns by local governments, which are primary stakeholders, to be addressed.

OBJECTIVES

To show how taking a local government perspective for economic evaluation can be implemented in practice and this may affect the economic conclusions.

METHODS

Based on data from a case study, the health equity impact of the intervention and its opportunity cost from a service provider viewpoint were assessed. The cost-effectiveness implications of a change in perspective were subsequently estimated by means of scenario analysis.

FINDINGS

The intervention was found to provide adult residents living in the most deprived city areas with greater health benefits compared with the rest of the population. However, a negative net equity impact was found in the short-term. The opportunity cost of the intervention was estimated to be substantially lower than its financial cost (£2.77 per person/year), with significant implications for decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking a local government perspective can affect the conclusions drawn from the economic evaluation of population-level programmes to promote exercise, and therefore influence decision making.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the smartphone app, Drink Less, compared with the NHS alcohol advice webpage, for the reduction of alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful adult drinkers in the UK at 6-month follow-up: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Digital interventions are effective for reducing alcohol consumption but evidence is limited regarding smartphone apps. Drink Less is a theory- and evidence-informed app to help people reduce their alcohol consumption that has been refined in terms of its content and design for usability across the sociodemographic spectrum. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of recommending Drink Less at reducing alcohol consumption compared with usual digital care.

DESIGN

Two-arm individually randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Online trial in the United Kingdom (UK).

PARTICIPANTS

Hazardous or harmful drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT] score ≥8) aged 18+ who want to drink less alcohol (n = 5562). Participants will be recruited from July 2020 to May 2022 using multiple strategies with a focus on remote digital methods.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Participants will be randomised to receive either an email recommending that they use Drink Less (intervention) or view the National Health Service (NHS) webpage on alcohol advice (comparator).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome is change in self-reported weekly alcohol consumption, assessed using the extended AUDIT-Consumption, between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include change in self-reported weekly alcohol consumption assessed at 1- and 3-month follow-ups, and the proportion of hazardous drinkers; alcohol-related problems and injury; health-related quality of life; and use of health services assessed at 6-month follow-up. Effectiveness will be examined with adjusted regression models, adjusting for baseline alcohol consumption and using an intention-to-treat approach. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess engagement, acceptability and mechanism of action. Economic evaluations will be conducted using both a short- and longer-term time horizon.

COMMENTS

This study will establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Drink Less app at reducing alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful adult drinkers and will be the first randomised controlled trial of an alcohol reduction app for the general population in the United Kingdom. This study will inform the decision on whether it is worth investing resources in large-scale implementation.

Distributional impact of the Malawian Essential Health Package

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), making the best use of scarce resources is essential to achieving universal health coverage. The design of health benefits packages creates the opportunity to select interventions on the basis of explicit objectives. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) provides a framework to evaluate interventions based on two objectives: increasing population health and reducing health inequality. We conduct aggregate DCEA of potential health benefits package interventions to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach in LMICs, using the case of the Malawian health benefits package. We use publicly available survey and census data common to LMICs and describe what challenges we encountered and how we addressed them. We estimate that diseases targeted by the health benefits package are most prevalent in the poorest population quintile and least prevalent in the richest quintile. The survey data we use indicate socioeconomic patterns in intervention uptake that diminish the population health gain and inequality reduction from the package. We find that a similar set of interventions would be prioritized when impact on health inequality is incorporated alongside impact on overall population health. However, conclusions about the impact of individual interventions on health inequalities are sensitive to assumptions regarding the health opportunity cost, the utilization of interventions, the distribution of diseases across population groups and the level of aversion to inequality. Our results suggest that efforts to improve access to the Essential Health Package could be targeted to specific interventions to improve the health of the poorest fastest but that identifying these interventions is uncertain. This exploratory work has shown the potential for applying the DCEA framework to inform health benefits package design within the LMIC setting and to provide insight into the equity impact of a health benefits package.

On the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in healthcare priority setting

In the past few years, empirical estimates of the marginal cost at which health care produces a quality-adjusted life year (QALY, k) have begun to emerge. In theory, these estimates could be used as cost-effectiveness thresholds by health-maximizing decision makers, but prioritization decisions in practice often include other considerations than just efficiency. Pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden is one such example, where the reimbursement authority (TLV) uses a threshold range to give priority to disease severity and rarity. In this paper, we argue that estimates of k should not be used to inform threshold ranges. Instead, they are better used directly in health technology assessment (HTA) to quantify how much health is forgone when a new technology is funded in place of other healthcare services. Using a recent decision made by TLV as a case, we show that an estimate of k for Sweden implies that reimbursement meant forgoing 8.6 QALYs for every QALY that was gained. Reporting cost-effectiveness evidence as QALYs forgone per QALY gained has several advantages: (i) it frames the decision as assigning an equity weight to QALYs gained, which is more transparent about the trade-off between equity and efficiency than determining a monetary cost per QALY threshold, (ii) it makes it less likely that decision makers neglect taking the opportunity cost of reimbursement into account by making it explicit, and (iii) it helps communicate the reason for sometimes denying reimbursement in a way that might be less objectionable to the public than current practice.

Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) can impact health inequities by informing healthcare priority-setting decisions. This paper presents a novel checklist to guide HTA practitioners looking to include equity considerations in their work: the equity checklist for HTA (ECHTA). The list is pragmatically organized according to the generic HTA phases and can be consulted at each step.

METHODS

A first set of items was based on the framework for equity in HTA developed by Culyer and Bombard. After rewording and reorganizing according to five HTA phases, they were complemented by elements emerging from a literature search. Consultations with method experts, decision makers, and stakeholders further refined the items. Further feedback was sought during a presentation of the tool at an international HTA conference. Lastly, the checklist was piloted through all five stages of an HTA.

RESULTS

ECHTA proposes elements to be considered at each one of the five HTA phases: Scoping, Evaluation, Recommendations and Conclusions, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, and Reassessment. More than a simple checklist, the tool provides details and examples that guide the evaluators through an analysis in each phase. A pilot test is also presented, which demonstrates the ECHTA's usability and added value.

CONCLUSIONS

ECHTA provides guidance for HTA evaluators wishing to ensure that their conclusions do not contribute to inequalities in health. Several points to build upon the current checklist will be addressed by a working group of experts, and further feedback is welcome from evaluators who have used the tool.

From impact evaluation to decision-analysis: assessing the extent and quality of evidence on ‘value for money’ in health impact evaluations in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Health impact evaluations (HIEs) are currently the main way of assessing policy changes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, evidence on effectiveness alone cannot reliably inform decisions over the allocation of limited resources. Health economic evaluation provides a suitable framework for ‘value for money’ assessments. Methods: In this article we explore to what extent economic evaluations have been conducted alongside published health impact evaluations, then we assess the quality of these, using criteria from an economic evaluation reference case developed for use in LMICs. Results: Among the 2419 HIEs stored in the International Initiative for Impact Evaluations (3ie) database, and among the 8155 studies identified by the Ovid Medline database search, only 70 studies included an economic evaluation. When measured against the quality assessment criteria, study quality showed great variation. Many studies did not fulfil the basic requirements for economic evaluation, such as stating the perspective of the budget holder, using generic health measures that can be compared across diseases, or suitably reflecting uncertainty. Conclusions: Greater effort should be directed towards bringing the fields of impact evaluation and economic evaluation together to better inform resource allocation decisions in global health.

Examining Equity Effects of Health Interventions in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to catalogue and describe published applications of equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs).

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline for English-language, peer-reviewed CEAs published on or before August 2019. We included CEAs that evaluated 2 or more alternatives; explicitly mentioned equity as a consideration or decision-making principle; and applied an equity-informative CEA method to analyze or examine at least 1 equity criterion in an applied CEA. We extracted data on selected characteristics and analyzed reporting quality using the CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles identified through a search and bibliography reviews met the inclusion criteria. All articles were published on or after 2010, with 80% published after 2015. Most studies evaluated primary prevention interventions in disease areas such as cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Equity impact analysis alone was the most common equity-informative CEA (56%), followed by equity impact analysis with financial protection effects (30%). At least 11 different equity criteria have been used in equity-informative CEAs; socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were used most frequently. Seventy-eight percent of studies reported finding "greater value" in an intervention after examining its distributional effects.

CONCLUSION

The number of equity-informative CEAs is increasing, and the wide range of equity criteria, diseases, interventions, settings, and populations represented suggests that broad application of these methods is feasible but will require further refinement. Inclusion of equity into CEAs may shift the value of evaluated interventions and can provide crucial additional information for decision makers.

Integrating Alternative Social Value Judgments Into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vaccines: An Application to Varicella-Zoster Virus Vaccination

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are based on the value judgment that health outcomes (eg, quantified in quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) are all equally valuable irrespective of their context. Whereas most published CEAs perform extensive sensitivity analysis on various parameters and assumptions, only rarely is the influence of the QALY-equivalence assumption on cost-effectiveness results investigated. We illustrate how the integration of alternative social value judgments in CEA can be a useful form of sensitivity analysis.

METHODS

Because varicella-zoster virus (VZV) vaccination affects 2 distinct diseases (varicella zoster and herpes zoster) and likely redistributes infections across different age groups, the program has an important equity dimension. We used a cost-effectiveness model and disentangled the share of direct protection and herd immunity within the total projected QALYs resulting from a 50-year childhood VZV program in the UK. We use the UK population's preferences for QALYs in the vaccine context to revalue QALYs accordingly.

RESULTS

Revaluing different types of QALYs for different age groups in line with public preferences leads to a 98% change in the projected net impact of the program. The QALYs gained among children through direct varicella protection become more important, whereas the QALYs lost indirectly through zoster in adults diminish in value. Weighting of vaccine-related side effects made a large difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that a sensitivity analysis in which alternative social value judgments about the value of health outcomes are integrated into CEA of vaccines is relatively straightforward and provides important additional information for decision makers to interpret cost-effectiveness results.

The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 Diabetes: a systematic literature review

Introduction: As a novel glucagon-like peptide-1receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment, the economic value of once-weekly semaglutide had been assessed in several country settings. The authors' objective was to systematically review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness associated with once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs and provide implications for further researches.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) published up to 25 July 2020 in PubMed, web of science, and the ISPOR presentation database, compared once-weekly semaglutide with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D. Nineteen studies were identified, including 8 short-term and 11 long-term studies. General characteristics and main results of the included studies were summarized.Expert opinion: This review provided references for other countries to overview the value of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D in the healthcare decision-making process and to conduct their CEA studies associated with once-weekly semaglutide. The authors found that the cardiovascular (CV) benefit of once-weekly semaglutide was under-estimated in current studies and suggested that the methods of economic evaluations for novel anti-diabetic drugs with CV benefit should be improved in future researches.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness and equity impacts of the Healthy Primary School of the Future initiative

BACKGROUND

This study estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness and equity impacts associated with two lifestyle interventions in the Dutch primary school setting (targeting 4-12 year olds).

METHODS

The Healthy Primary School of the Future (HPSF; a healthy school lunch and structured physical activity) and the Physical Activity School (PAS; structured physical activity) were compared to the regular Dutch curriculum (N = 1676). An adolescence model, calculating weight development, and the RIVM Chronic Disease Model, calculating overweight-related chronic diseases, were linked to estimate the lifetime impact on chronic diseases, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare, and productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the additional costs/QALY gained and we used €20,000 as threshold. Scenario analyses accounted for alternative effect maintenance scenarios and equity analyses examined cost-effectiveness in different socioeconomic status (SES) groups.

RESULTS

HPSF resulted in a lifetime costs of €773 (societal perspective) and a lifetime QALY gain of 0.039 per child versus control schools. HPSF led to lower costs and more QALYs as compared to PAS. From a societal perspective, HPSF had a cost/QALY gained of €19,734 versus control schools, 50% probability of being cost-effective, and beneficial equity impact (0.02 QALYs gained/child for low versus high SES). The cost-effectiveness threshold was surpassed when intervention effects decayed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

HPSF may be a cost-effective and equitable strategy for combatting the lifetime burden of unhealthy lifestyles. The win-win situation will, however, only be realised if the intervention effect is sustained into adulthood for all SES groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02800616 ). Registered 15 June 2016 - Retrospectively registered.

Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries

Covid-19 requires policy makers to consider evidence on both population health and economic welfare. Over the last two decades, the field of health economics has developed a range of analytical approaches and contributed to the institutionalisation of processes to employ economic evidence in health policy. We present a discussion outlining how these approaches and processes need to be applied more widely to inform Covid-19 policy; highlighting where they may need to be adapted conceptually and methodologically, and providing examples of work to date. We focus on the evidential and policy needs of low- and middle-income countries; where there is an urgent need for evidence to navigate the policy trade-offs between health and economic well-being posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Public Health Interventions with Harms and Benefits: A Graphical Framework for Evaluating Tradeoffs

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of public health interventions typically report benefits and harms aggregated over the population. However, benefits and harms are not always evenly distributed. Examining disaggregated outcomes enables decision makers to consider health benefits and harms accruing to both intended intervention recipients and others in the population.

METHODS

We provide a graphical framework for categorizing and comparing public health interventions that examines the distribution of benefit and harm between and within population subgroups for a single intervention and compares distributions of harm and benefit for multiple interventions. We demonstrate the framework through a case study of a hypothetical increase in the price of meat (5%, 10%, 25%, or 50%) that, via elasticity of demand, reduces consumption and consequently reduces body mass index. We examine how inequalities in benefits and harms (measured by quality-adjusted life-years) are distributed across a population of white and black males and females.

RESULTS

A 50% meat price increase would yield the greatest net benefit to the population. However, because of reduced consumption among low-weight individuals, black males would bear disproportionate harm relative to the benefit they receive. With increasing meat price, the distribution of harm relative to benefit becomes less "internal" to those receiving benefit and more "distributed" to those not receiving commensurate benefit. When we segment the population by sex only, this result does not hold.

CONCLUSIONS

Disaggregating harms and benefits to understand their differential impact on subgroups can strongly affect which decision alternative is deemed optimal, as can the approach to segmenting the population. Our framework provides a useful tool for illuminating key tradeoffs relevant to harm-averse decision makers and those concerned with both equity and efficiency.

How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: A distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions

INTRODUCTION

Reduction of health inequality is a goal in health policy, but commissioners lack information on how policies change health inequality. This study illustrates how decision models can be readily extended to produce information on health inequality impacts as well as for population health, using the example of smoking cessation therapies.

METHODS

We retrospectively adapt a model developed for public health guidance to undertake distributional cost effectiveness analysis. We identify and incorporate evidence on how inputs vary by area-level deprivation. Therapies are evaluated in terms of total population health, extent of inequality, and a summary measure of equally distributed equivalent health based on a societal value for inequality aversion. Last, we examine how accounting for social variation in different sets of parameters affects our results.

RESULTS

All interventions increase population health and increase the slope index ofinequality. At estimated levels of health inequality aversion for England, our resultsindicate that the increases in inequality are compensated by the health gains.

DISCUSSION

The inequality impacts are driven by higher benefits of quitting and higher intervention uptake amongst advantaged groups, despite the greater proportion of smokers in disadvantaged groups. Failure to account for differential effects between groups leadsto different conclusions about health inequality impact but does not alter conclusionsabout value for money.

Implementing Lifestyle Change Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes in US Medicaid Programs: Cost Effectiveness, and Cost, Health, and Health Equity Impact

BACKGROUND

Lifestyle change interventions (LCI) for prevention of type 2 diabetes are covered by Medicare, but rarely by US Medicaid programs that constitute the largest public payer system in the USA. We estimate the long-term health and economic implications of implementing LCIs in state Medicaid programs.

METHODS

We compared LCIs modeled after the intervention of the Diabetes Prevention Program versus routine care advice using a decision analytic simulation model and best available data from representative surveys, cohort studies, Medicaid claims data, and the published literature. Target population were non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries aged 19-64 years at high risk for type 2 diabetes (BMI ≥25 kg/m² and HbA1c ≥ 5.7% or fasting plasma glucose ≥ 110 mg/dl) from eight study states (Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma) that represent around 50% of the US Medicaid population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured in cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and population cost and health impact were modeled from a healthcare system perspective and a narrow Medicaid perspective.

RESULTS

In the eight selected study states, 1.9 million or 18% of non-disability-based adult Medicaid beneficiaries would belong to the eligible high-risk target population - 66% of them Hispanics or non-Hispanic black. In the base-case analysis, the aggregated 5- and 10-year ICERs are US$226 k/QALY and US$34 k/QALY; over 25 years, the intervention dominates routine care. The 5-, 10-, and 25-year probabilities that the ICERs are below US$50 k (US$100 k)/QALY are 6% (15%), 59% (82%) and 96% (100%). From a healthcare system perspective, initial program investments of US$800 per person would be offset after 13 years and translate to US$548 of savings after 25 years. With a 20% LCI uptake in eligible beneficiaries, this would translate to upfront costs of US$300 million, prevent 260 thousand years of diabetes and save US$205 million over a 25-year time horizon. Cost savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller. Minorities and low-income groups would over-proportionally benefit from LCIs in Medicaid, but the impact on population health and health equity would be marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

In the long-term, investments in LCIs for Medicaid beneficiaries are likely to improve health and to decrease healthcare expenditures. However, population health and health equity impact would be low and healthcare expenditure savings from a narrow Medicaid perspective would be much smaller than from a healthcare system perspective.

Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine

Purpose. A range of barriers may constrain the effective implementation of strategies to deliver precision medicine. If the marginal costs and consequences of precision medicine vary at different levels of implementation, then such variation will have an impact on relative cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to illustrate the importance and quantify the impact of varying marginal costs and benefits on the value of implementation for a case study in precision medicine. Methods. An existing method to calculate the value of implementation was adapted to allow marginal costs and consequences of introducing precision medicine into practice to vary across differing levels of implementation. This illustrative analysis used a case study based on a published decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a 70-gene recurrence score (MammaPrint) for breast cancer. The impact of allowing for varying costs and benefits for the value of the precision medicine and of implementation strategies was illustrated graphically and numerically in both static and dynamic forms. Results. The increasing returns to scale exhibited by introducing this specific example of precision medicine mean that a minimum level of implementation (51%) is required for using the 70-gene recurrence score to be cost-effective at a defined threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The observed variation in net monetary benefit implies that the value of implementation strategies was dependent on the initial and ending levels of implementation in addition to the magnitude of the increase in patients receiving the 70-gene recurrence score. In dynamic models, incremental losses caused by low implementation accrue over time unless implementation is improved. Conclusions. Poor implementation of approaches to deliver precision medicine, identified to be cost-effective using decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, can have a significant economic impact on health systems. Developing and evaluating the economic impact of strategies to improve the implementation of precision medicine will potentially realize the more cost-effective use of health care budgets.

An Economic Evaluation Framework for Government-Funded Home Adaptation Schemes: A Quantitative Approach

The ability to live independently plays a crucial role in the mental and psychological wellbeing of the disabled. To achieve this goal, most governments spend a substantial budget on home adaptation projects. It has been observed that schemes with different target clients (residents versus landlords) are different in efficiency and effectiveness. To understand why and how these schemes differ in performance, this paper develops and applies a generic economic evaluation framework for government-funded home adaptation schemes. Based on the individual-level surveys collected in the United Kingdom, an empirical model was formulated to quantify the determinants for various performance indicators, including money costs, time costs and client satisfaction. Robust estimation procedures were applied to deal with the heteroscedasticity and outlier problems in the data. Results showed that a specialized independent living scheme dedicated to disability adaptations (e.g., the Physical Adaptations Grant, PAG) had higher efficiency and effectiveness than general-purpose schemes (e.g., the Disabled Facilities Grant, DFG), because the funds were provided to the landlords who had a stronger motivation to minimize the time cost in the short run and maximize the future rent potential in the long run. A "unified system" approach to adaptations should be a guiding principle for policy development, regardless of who actually delivers the service.

Values are not enough: qualitative study identifying critical elements for prioritization of health equity in health systems

Background

Health system policies and programs that reduce health inequities and improve health outcomes are essential to address unjust social gradients in health. Prioritization of health equity is fundamental to addressing health inequities but challenging to enact in health systems. Strategies are needed to support effective prioritization of health equity.

Methods

Following provincial policy recommendations to apply a health equity lens in all public health programs, we examined health equity prioritization within British Columbia health authorities during early implementation. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus groups with 55 senior executives, public health directors, regional directors, and medical health officers from six health authorities and the Ministry of Health. We used an inductive constant comparative approach to analysis guided by complexity theory to determine critical elements for prioritization.

Results

We identified seven critical elements necessary for two fundamental shifts within health systems. 1) Prioritization through informal organization includes creating a systems value for health equity and engaging health equity champions. 2) Prioritization through formal organization requires explicit naming of health equity as a priority, designating resources for health equity, requiring health equity in decision making, building capacity and competency, and coordinating a comprehensive approach across levels of the health system and government.

Conclusions

Although creating a shared value for health equity is essential, health equity - underpinned by social justice - needs to be embedded at the structural level to support effective prioritization. Prioritization within government and ministries is necessary to facilitate prioritization at other levels. All levels within health systems should be accountable for explicitly including health equity in strategic plans and goals. Dedicated resources are needed for health equity initiatives including adequate resourcing of public health infrastructure, training, and hiring of staff with equity expertise to develop competencies and system capacity.

Estimating Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD)

Objectives

At any point in time, a person’s lifetime health is the number of healthy life years they are expected to experience during their lifetime. In this article we propose an equity-relevant health metric, Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD), that facilitates comparison of lifetime health for individuals at the onset of different medical conditions, and allows for the assessment of which patient groups are worse off. A method for estimating HAAD is presented, and we use this method to rank four conditions in six countries according to several criteria of “worse off” as a proof of concept.

Methods

For individuals with specific conditions HAAD consists of two components: past health (before disease onset) and future expected health (after disease onset). Four conditions (acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), schizophrenia, and epilepsy) are analysed in six countries (Ethiopia, Haiti, China, Mexico, United States and Japan). Data from 2017 for all countries and for all diseases were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study database. In order to assess who are the worse off, we focus on four measures: the proportion of affected individuals who are expected to have HAAD<20 (T20), the 25^th and 75^th percentiles of HAAD for affected individuals (Q1 and Q3, respectively), and the average HAAD (aHAAD) across all affected individuals.

Results

Even in settings where aHAAD is similar for two conditions, other measures may vary. One example is AML (aHAAD = 59.3, T20 = 2.0%, Q3-Q1 = 14.8) and ALL (58.4, T20 = 4.6%, Q3-Q1 = 21.8) in the US. Many illnesses, such as epilepsy, are associated with more lifetime health in high-income settings (Q1 in Japan = 59.2) than in low-income settings (Q1 in Ethiopia = 26.3).

Conclusion

Using HAAD we may estimate the distribution of lifetime health of all individuals in a population, and this distribution can be incorporated as an equity consideration in setting priorities for health interventions.

Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis

When setting priorities for health, there is broad agreement that a range of social values and ethical principles beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness matter, but exactly how health technology assessment (HTA) should account for a broader set of criteria remains an area of ongoing debate. In light of this, we welcome a recent review paper by Baltussen et al. evaluating the potential of different multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches to enable HTA agencies to incorporate a broader set of values in their appraisals. The authors describe three approaches to MCDA-qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules-laying out their relative advantages and disadvantages and providing recommendations for how they can best be implemented. While we endorse many of the authors' assessments and conclusions, including the critical role of deliberation in any MCDA approach and the undertaking of qualitative MCDA at a minimum, we take a stronger position regarding the flaws of quantitative MCDA and strongly caution against it. We find quantitative MCDA antithetical to at least two of the ways MCDA is intended to improve HTA recommendations: (i) enhancing quality and (ii) promoting transparency. Quantitative MCDA may mask the complex tradeoffs that exist within and between decision criteria and remain generally inaccessible to those who are not well-versed in its technical methods of appraisal. We advocate for a predominantly qualitative approach to MCDA appraisal centered around deliberation and supplemented with decision aids to help account for health opportunity costs.

[Equity in the health economic evaluation of public health: An overview]

AIM

Starting from the claim that public health interventions should aim to improve health equity, the article examines which methodological approaches of health economic evaluation exist to support the analysis of equity-related outcomes of different interventions.

METHOD

Critical review of the relevant literature.

RESULTS

Against the background of the normative foundations of health economic evaluation, three methodological approaches and three practical methods are presented that allow for considering health equity concerns in health economic evaluations. Implications of the different approaches and references to the German context are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The use of the instruments presented offers good potential to improve transparency with respect to distributive effects of different allocation decisions. This appears to be necessary in order to meet demands for health equity improving public health interventions - especially in the context of the German Prevention Act.

How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review

There is growing interest in the use of "distributionally-sensitive" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.

Estimating Social Variation in the Health Effects of Changes in Health Care Expenditure

Background. A common aim of health expenditure is to reduce unfair inequalities in health. Although previous research has attempted to estimate the total health effects of changes in health expenditure, little is known about how changes affect different groups in the population. Methods. We propose a general framework for disaggregating the total health effects of changes in health expenditure by social groups. This can be performed indirectly when the estimate of the total health effect has first been disaggregated by a secondary factor (e.g., disease area) that can be linked to social characteristics. This is illustrated with an application to the English National Health Service. Evidence on the health effects of expenditure across 23 disease areas is combined with data on the distribution of disease-specific hospital utilization by age, sex, and area-level deprivation. Results. We find that the health effects from NHS expenditure changes are produced largely through disease areas in which individuals from more deprived areas account for a large share of health care utilization, namely, respiratory and neurologic disease and mental health. We estimate that 26% of the total health effect from a change in expenditure would accrue to the fifth of the population living in the most deprived areas, compared with 14% to the fifth living in the least deprived areas. Conclusions. Our approach can be useful for evaluating the health inequality impacts of changing health budgets or funding alternative health programs. However, it requires robust estimates of how health expenditure affects health outcomes. Our example analysis also relied on strong assumptions about the relationship between health care utilization and health effects across population groups.

Economics and mental health: the current scenario

Economics and mental health are intertwined. Apart from the accumulating evidence of the huge economic impacts of mental ill-health, and the growing recognition of the effects that economic circumstances can exert on mental health, governments and other budget-holders are putting increasing emphasis on economic data to support their decisions. Here we consider how economic evaluation (including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and related techniques) can contribute evidence to inform the development of mental health policy strategies, and to identify some consequences at the treatment or care level that are of relevance to service providers and funding bodies. We provide an update and reflection on economic evidence relating to mental health using a lifespan perspective, analyzing costs and outcomes to shed light on a range of pressing issues. The past 30 years have witnessed a rapid growth in mental health economics, but major knowledge gaps remain. Across the lifespan, clearer evidence exists in the areas of perinatal depression identification-plus-treatment; risk-reduction of mental health problems in childhood and adolescence; scaling up treatment, particularly psychotherapy, for depression; community-based early intervention and employment support for psychosis; and cognitive stimulation and multicomponent carer interventions for dementia. From this discussion, we pull out the main challenges that are faced when trying to take evidence from research and translating it into policy or practice recommendations, and from there to actual implementation in terms of better treatment and care.

Mapping the evidence on health equity considerations in economic evaluations of health interventions: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Equity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.

DISCUSSION

The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).

Universal or targeted cardiovascular screening? Modelling study using a sector-specific distributional cost effectiveness analysis

Distributional cost effectiveness analysis is a new method that can help to redesign prevention programmes by explicitly modelling the distribution of health opportunity costs as well as the distribution of health benefits. Previously we modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening audit data from Liverpool, UK to see if the city could redesign its cardiovascular screening programme to enhance its cost effectiveness and equity. Building on this previous analysis, we explicitly examined the distribution of health opportunity costs and we looked at new redesign options co-designed with stakeholders. We simulated four plausible scenarios: a) no CVD screening, b) 'current' basic universal CVD screening as currently implemented, c) enhanced universal CVD screening with 'increased' population-wide delivery, and d) 'universal plus targeted' with top-up delivery to the most deprived fifth. We also compared assumptions around whether displaced health spend would come from programmes that might benefit the poor more and how much health these programmes would generate. The main outcomes were net health benefit and change in the slope index of inequality (SII) in QALYs per 100,000 person years. 'Universal plus targeted' dominated 'increased' and 'current' and also reduced health inequality by -0.65 QALYs per 100,000 person years. Results are highly sensitive to assumptions about opportunity costs and, in particular, whether funding comes from health care or local government budgets. By analysing who loses as well as who gains from expenditure decisions, distributional cost effectiveness analysis can help decision makers to redesign prevention programmes in ways that improve health and reduce health inequality.

Health Years in Total: A New Health Objective Function for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To find an alternative for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and equal value of life (EVL) measures. Despite the importance of QALY in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)-because it captures the effects of both life expectancy and health-related quality of life (QOL) and enables comparisons across interventions and disease areas-its potential to be discriminatory towards patients with lower QOL presents a critical challenge that has resulted in the exclusion of its use in some public decision making (eg, US Medicare) on healthcare in the United States. Alternatives to QALY, such as EVL, have not gained traction because EVL fails to recognize the QOL gains during added years of life.

METHODS

We present a new metric for effectiveness for CEA, health years in total (HYT), which overcomes both the specific distributional issue raised by QALY and the efficiency challenges of EVL.

RESULTS

The HYT framework separates life expectancy changes and QOL changes on an additive scale. HYT have the same axiomatic foundations as QALY and perform better than both QALY, in terms of the discriminatory implications, and EVL, in terms of capturing QOL gains during added years of life. HYT are straightforward to calculate within a CEA model. We found that thresholds of $34 000/HYT and $89 000/HYT correspond to CEA thresholds of $50 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The HYT framework may provide a viable alternative to both the QALY and the EVL; its application to diverse healthcare technologies and stakeholder assessments are important next steps in its development and evaluation.

The historical roots and seminal research on health equity: a referenced publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) analysis

BACKGROUND

Health equity is a multidimensional concept that has been internationally considered as an essential element for health system development. However, our understanding about the root causes of health equity is limited. In this study, we investigated the historical roots and seminal works of research on health equity.

METHODS

Health equity-related publications were identified and downloaded from the Web of Science database (n = 67,739, up to 31 October 2018). Their cited references (n = 2,521,782) were analyzed through Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS), which detected the historical roots and important works on health equity and quantified their impact in terms of referencing frequency.

RESULTS

A total of 17 pronounced peaks and 31 seminal works were identified. The first publication on health equity appeared in 1966. But the first cited reference can be traced back to 1801. Most seminal works were conducted by researchers from the US (19, 61.3%), the UK (7, 22.6%) and the Netherlands (3, 9.7%). Research on health equity experienced three important historical stages: origins (1800-1965), formative (1966-1991) and development and expansion (1991-2018). The ideology of health equity was endorsed by the international society through the World Health Organization (1946) declaration based on the foundational works of Chadwick (1842), Engels (1945), Durkheim (1897) and Du Bois (1899). The concept of health equity originated from the disciplines of public health, sociology and political economics and has been a major research area of social epidemiology since the early nineteenth century. Studies on health equity evolved from evidence gathering to the identification of cost-effective policies and governmental interventions.

CONCLUSION

The development of research on health equity is shaped by multiple disciplines, which has contributed to the emergence of a new stream of social epidemiology and political epidemiology. Past studies must be interpreted in light of their historical contexts. Further studies are needed to explore the causal pathways between the social determinants of health and health inequalities.