Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach

The economic evaluation of a housing maintenance project to improve the health of Aboriginal housing tenants in NSW: A scoping literature review and protocol for an economic analysis

Considerable evidence exists regarding the role housing plays in the determination of health and well-being outcomes. Despite the scale of health concerns arising from housing considerations, there are very few economic analyses of housing programs that seek to improve health outcomes by addressing the physical infrastructure of the living environment. The NSW Housing for Health (HfH) program is an environmental health initiative funded and administered by NSW Health, that addresses health-related hardware in residential accommodation to ensure the home environment supports healthy living practices to ultimately improve health outcomes for residents. This study reviews the economic methods that have been applied to comparable programs and identifies relevant costs and benefits that should be addressed. Founded on the requirement from decision makers, and the insights from the review, the paper outlines a protocol for a cost-benefit analysis that accounts for the disparate health, social, economic and intangible benefits generated from the HfH program and the resources utilised to realise these outcomes.

[Reducing Health Inequalities: Development of a Stepwise Procedure from Data to Political Interventions]

Low socioeconomic status (assessed by indicators such as educational level or income) is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This has been shown in many empirical studies, also in Germany. There are numerous calls for political interventions aimed at reducing these health inequalities, in scientific discussions as well as in the public. Asked for scientifically based recommendations on how to proceed 'from data to action̓, we have to admit that we are still faced with many questions and few answers. Developing these recommendations poses many challenges such as, for example, how to integrate the expertise from different public health disciplines. The present study focuses on the cooperation between social epidemiology, public health ethics and health economics, as we believe that these three disciplines are of particular importance here. We briefly outline what each of them could contribute to the development of practical interventions aimed at reducing health inequalities. We particularly emphasize the importance of public health ethics, as it focuses on questions that to date have largely been neglected in the German discussion: How can we evaluate the empirical data and the proposed political interventions from an ethical point of view? Which health inequalities are 'unjust̓, and how can this normative judgement be justified? Based on the expertise from the three disciplines mentioned above, the aim is to pave the way 'from data to action̓ by developing a well-structured stepwise procedure for interventions aimed at reducing health inequalities. The joint scheme could be very beneficial not only for developing practical interventions, but also for further developing each discipline in itself. The simple scheme proposed here could be a starting point that helps specify many open questions on this path 'from data to action̓.

A QALY is [still] a QALY is [still] a QALY? : Evaluating proportional shortfall as the answer to the problem of equity in healthcare allocations

Despite clinical evidence of drug superiority, therapeutic modalities, like combination immunotherapy, are mostly considered cost-ineffective due to their high costs per life year(s) gained. This paper, taking an ethical stand, reevaluates the standard cost-effectiveness analysis with that of the more recent justice-enhanced methods and concludes by pointing out the shortcomings of the current methodologies.

Logical Inconsistencies in the Health Years in Total and Equal Value of Life-Years Gained

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess whether recently proposed alternatives to the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), intended to address concerns about discrimination, are suitable for informing resource allocation decisions.

METHODS

We consider 2 alternatives to the QALY: the health years in total (HYT), recently proposed by Basu et al, and the equal value of life-years gained (evLYG), currently used by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For completeness we also consider unweighted life-years (LYs). Using a hypothetical example comparing 3 mutually exclusive treatment options, we consider how calculations are performed under each approach and whether the resulting rankings are logically consistent. We also explore some further challenges that arise from the unique properties of the HYT approach.

RESULTS

The HYT and evLYG approaches can result in logical inconsistencies that do not arise under the QALY or LY approaches. HYT can violate the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom, whereas the evLYG can produce an unstable ranking of treatment options. HYT have additional issues, including an implausible assumption that the utilities associated with health-related quality of life and LYs are "separable," and a consideration of "counterfactual" health-related quality of life for patients who are dead.

CONCLUSIONS

The HYT and evLYG approaches can result in logically inconsistent decisions. We recommend that decision makers avoid these approaches and that the logical consistency of any approaches proposed in future be thoroughly explored before considering their use in practice.

Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES

Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children.

METHODS

We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO.

RESULTS

There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

Equitable Prioritization of Health Interventions by Incorporating Financial Risk Protection Weights Into Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Financial risk protection (FRP), or the prevention of medical impoverishment, is a major objective of health systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where the extent of out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditures can be substantial. We sought to develop a method that allows decision makers to explicitly integrate FRP outcomes into their priority-setting activities.

METHODS

We used literature review to identify 31 interventions in low- and middle-income countries, each of which provided measures of health outcomes, costs, OOP health expenditures averted, and FRP (proxied by OOP health expenditures averted as a percentage of income), all disaggregated by income quintile. We developed weights drawn from the Z-score of each quintile-intervention pair based on the distribution of FRP of all quintile-intervention pairs. We next ranked the interventions by unweighted and weighted health outcomes for each income quintile. We also evaluated how pro-poor they were by, first, ordering the interventions by cost-effectiveness for each quintile and, next, calculating the proportion of interventions each income quintile would be targeted for a given random budget. A ranking was said to be pro-poor if each quintile received the same or higher proportion of interventions than richer quintiles.

RESULTS

Using FRP weights produced a more pro-poor priority setting than unweighted outcomes. Most of the reordering produced by the inclusion of FRP weights occurred in interventions of moderate cost-effectiveness, suggesting that these weights would be most useful as a way of distinguishing moderately cost-effective interventions with relatively high potential FRP.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary method of integrating FRP into priority-setting would likely be most suitable to deciding between health interventions with intermediate cost-effectiveness.

How Much Does the US Public Value Equity in Health? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to summarize and qualitatively assess published evaluations on the US public's preferences for health equity and their willingness to trade-off efficiency for equity.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant peer-reviewed publications on this topic before February 2021. We included English-language articles that solicited US preferences regarding efficiency-equity trade-offs and prioritizing healthcare resources based on socioeconomic status, race, disability, or burden of disease. Quantitative and qualitative data captured were decided a priori and iteratively adapted as themes emerged.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were found over a 25-year span. Only 4 focused on resource allocation across social groups. Three distinct notions of fairness were studied: equal distribution of resources, priority to the worse-off, and equal health achieved. We found modest support for equal distribution of resources and willingness to sacrifice efficiency for equity in the United States. Prioritizing the underserved was relatively less studied and received less support and was more preferred when resources were scarce, when allocating resources between social groups, or when participants were informed about the fundamental origins of health inequities. Equal health was the least studied, but received nontrivial support.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing literature evaluating the US public's understanding and preferences toward equity was severely limited by the lack of rigorous quantitative studies and heterogeneous attribute selection and fairness definitions. High-quality studies that clearly define fairness, focus on social groups, and apply rigorous methods to quantify equity preferences are needed to integrate the public's value on equity into healthcare decisions.

Considering equity in priority setting using transmission models: Recommendations and data needs

OBJECTIVES

Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations.

RESULTS

We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV counselling and testing modalities in Southern Mozambique

Objective

Despite the high HIV associated burden, Mozambique lacks data on HIV counselling and testing (HCT) costs. To help guide national HIV/AIDS programs, we estimated the cost per test for voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) from the patient’s perspective and the costs per person tested and per HIV-positive individual linked to care to the healthcare provider for VCT, provider-initiated counselling and testing (PICT) and home-based testing (HBT). We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of these strategies for linking patients to care.

Methods

Data from a cohort study conducted in the Manhiça District were used to derive costs and linkage-to-care outcomes of the three HCT strategies. A decision tree was used to model HCT costs according to the likelihood of HCT linking individuals to care and to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PICT and HBT with VCT as the comparator. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of base-case findings.

Findings

Based on costs and valuations in 2015, average and median VCT costs to the patient per individual tested were US$1.34 and US$1.08, respectively. Costs per individual tested were greatest for HBT (US$11.07), followed by VCT (US$7.79), and PICT (US$7.14). The costs per HIV-positive individual linked to care followed a similar trend. PICT was not cost-effective in comparison with VCT at a willingness-to-accept threshold of US$4.53, but only marginally given a corresponding base-case ICER of US$4.15, while HBT was dominated, with higher costs and lower impact than VCT. Base-case results for the comparison between PICT and VCT presented great uncertainty, whereas findings for HBT were robust.

Conclusion

PICT and VCT are likely equally cost-effective in Manhiça. We recommend that VCT be offered as the predominant HCT strategy in Mozambique, but expansion of PICT could be considered in limited-resource areas. HBT without facilitated linkage or reduced costs is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these.

RESULTS

In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind.

CONCLUSIONS

The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.

Economic evaluation guidelines in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically identify the latest versions of official economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and explore similarities and differences in their content.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.

RESULTS

Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost-utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.

Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

There is growing interest in extending the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year framework beyond health. Using a critical interpretive synthesis approach, the objective was to review peer-reviewed literature that has discussed non-health outcomes within the context of quality-adjusted life-years and synthesise information into a thematic framework. Papers were identified through searches conducted in Web of Science, using forward citation searching. A critical interpretive synthesis allows for the development of interpretations (synthetic constructs) that go beyond those offered in the original sources. The final output of a critical interpretive synthesis is the synthesising argument, which integrates evidence from across studies into a coherent thematic framework. A concept map was developed to show the relationships between different types of non-health benefits. The critical interpretive synthesis was based on 99 papers. The thematic framework was constructed around four themes: (1) benefits affecting well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, capability and empowerment); (2) benefits derived from the process of healthcare delivery; (3) benefits beyond the recipient of care (spillover effects, externalities, option value and distributional benefits); and (4) benefits beyond the healthcare sector. There is a wealth of research concerning non-health benefits and the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year. Further dialogue and debate are necessary to address conceptual and normative challenges, to explore the societal willingness to sacrifice health for benefits beyond health and to consider the equity implications of different courses of action.

Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients

OBJECTIVES

Decision-making frameworks that draw on economic evaluations increasingly use equity weights to facilitate a more equitable and fair allocation of healthcare resources. These weights can be attached to health gains or reflected in the monetary threshold against which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (new) health technologies are evaluated. Currently applied weights are based on different definitions of disease severity and do not account for age-related preferences in society. However, age has been shown to be an important equity-relevant characteristic. This study examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related quality of life (QOL) gains in relation to the disease severity and age of patients, and the outcome of the disease.

METHODS

We obtained WTP estimates by applying contingent-valuation tasks in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (n = 2023). We applied random-effects generalized least squares regression models to estimate the effect of patients' disease severity and age, size of QOL gains, disease outcome (full recovery/death 1 year after falling ill), and respondent characteristics on the WTP.

RESULTS

Respondents' WTP was higher for more severely ill and younger patients and for larger-sized QOL gains, but lower for patients who died. However, the relations were nonlinear and context dependent. Respondents with a lower age, who were male, had a higher household income, and a higher QOL stated a higher WTP for QOL gains.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that-if the aim is to align resource-allocation decisions in healthcare with societal preferences-currently applied equity weights do not suffice.

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.

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.

[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.

The relative value of different QALY types

The oft-applied assumption in the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in economic evaluation, that all QALYs are valued equally, has been questioned from the outset. The literature has focused on differential values of a QALY based on equity considerations such as the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the QALYs. However, a key characteristic which may affect the value of a QALY is the type of QALY itself. QALY gains can be generated purely by gains in survival, purely by improvements in quality of life, or by changes in both. Using a discrete choice experiment and a new methodological approach to the derivation of relative weights, we undertake the first direct and systematic exploration of the relative weight accorded different QALY types and do so in the presence of equity considerations; age and severity. Results provide new evidence against the normative starting point that all QALYs are valued equally.

Methods to promote equity in health resource allocation in low- and middle-income countries: an overview

Unfair differences in healthcare access, utilisation, quality or health outcomes exist between and within countries around the world. Improving health equity is a stated objective for many governments and international organizations. We provide an overview of the major tools that have been developed to measure, evaluate and promote health equity, along with the data required to operationalise them.Methods are organised into four key policy questions facing decision-makers: (i) what is the current level of inequity in health; (ii) does government health expenditure benefit the worst-off; (iii) can government health expenditure more effectively promote equity; and (iv) which interventions provide the best value for money in reducing inequity.Benefit incidence analysis can be used to estimate the distribution of current public health sector expenditure, with geographical resource allocation formulae and health system reform being the main government policy levers for improving equity. Techniques from the economic evaluation literature, such as extended and distributional cost-effectiveness analysis can be used to identify 'best buy' interventions from a health equity perspective. A range of inequality metrics, from gap measures and slope indices to concentration indices and regression analysis, can be applied to these approaches to evaluate changes in equity.Methods from the economics literature can provide policymakers with a toolkit for addressing multiple aspects of health equity, from outcomes to financial protection, and can be adapted to accommodate data commonly available in low- and middle-income settings.

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).

Alteridade ou austeridade: uma revisão acerca do valor da equidade em saúde em tempos de crise econômica internacional

Resumo Nas últimas décadas, o sistema capitalista, transformado por meio de crises mais agressivas e globais, tem submetido a sociedade à austeridade fiscal e tensionado a garantia dos direitos à saúde, como imposição para ampliar a eficiência e efetividade dos sistemas de saúde. A equidade em saúde, por outro lado, opera como fator protetor em relação aos efeitos nocivos da austeridade sobre a saúde da população. O objetivo deste artigo é analisar o efeito da crise financeira global quanto à valorização da equidade em saúde frente à efetividade nas comparações internacionais de eficiência dos sistemas de saúde na literatura científica. Realizada revisão integrativa, com busca nas bases de dados PubMed e BVS, de 2008-18, com análise cross-case. O equilíbrio entre equidade e efetividade deve ser buscado desde o financiamento até os resultados em saúde, de modo eficiente, como forma de fortalecimento dos sistemas de saúde. A escolha entre alteridade ou austeridade deve ser feita de forma explícita e transparente, com resiliência dos valores societais e princípios de universalidade, integralidade e equidade.

Health economics methods for public health resource allocation: a qualitative interview study of decision makers from an English local authority

Local authorities in England have responsibility for public health, however, in recent years, budgets have been drastically reduced placing decision makers under unprecedented financial pressure. Although health economics can offer support for decision making, there is limited evidence of it being used in practice. The aim of this study was to undertake in-depth qualitative research within one local authority to better understand the context for public health decision making; what, and how economics evidence is being used; and invite suggestions for how methods could be improved to better support local public health decision making. The study included both observational methods and in-depth interviews. Key meetings were observed and semi-structured interviews conducted with participants who had a decision-making role to explore views on economics, to understand the barriers to using evidence and to invite suggestions for improvements to methods. Despite all informants valuing the use of health economics, many barriers were cited: including a perception of a narrow focus on the health sector; lack of consideration of population impact; and problems with translating long timescales to short term impact. Methodological suggestions included the broadening of frameworks; increased use of natural experiments; and capturing wider non-health outcomes that resonate with the priorities of multiple stakeholders.

Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review

Social justice is the moral imperative to avoid and remediate unfair distributions of societal disadvantage. In priority setting in healthcare and public health, social justice reaches beyond fairness in the distribution of health outcomes and economic impacts to encompass fairness in the distribution of policy impacts upon other dimensions of well-being. There is an emerging awareness of the need for economic evaluation to integrate all such concerns. We performed a systematic review (1) to describe methodological solutions suitable for integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation, and (2) to describe the challenges that those solutions face. To be included, publications must have captured fairness considerations that (a) involve cross-dimensional subjective personal life experience and (b) can be manifested at the level of subpopulations. We identified relevant publications using an electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, EconLit, PsycInfo, Philosopher's Index, and Scopus, including publications available in English in the past 20 years. Two reviewers independently appraised candidate publications, extracted data, and synthesized findings in narrative form. Out of 2388 publications reviewed, 26 were included. Solutions sought either to incorporate relevant fairness considerations directly into economic evaluation or to report them alongside cost-effectiveness measures. The majority of reviewed solutions, if adapted to integrate social justice concerns, would require their explicit quantification. Four broad challenges related to the implementation of these solutions were identified: clarifying the normative basis; measuring and determining the relative importance of criteria representing that basis; combining the criteria; and evaluating trade-offs. All included solutions must grapple with an inherent tension: they must either face the normative and operational challenges of quantifying social justice concerns or accede to offering incomplete policy guidance. Interdisciplinary research and broader collaborations are crucial to address these challenges and to support due attention to social justice in priority setting.