A Budget Impact Model to Estimate the Environmental Impact of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux

Cost of Carbon in the Total Cost of Healthcare Procedures: A Methodological Challenge

Economic evaluations aim to compare the costs and the results of health strategies to guide the public decision-making process. Cost estimation is, thus, a cornerstone of this approach. At present, few national evaluation agencies recommend incorporating the cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from healthcare actions into the calculation of healthcare costs. Our main goal is to describe and discuss the methodology for integrating the cost of GHG emissions into the field of applied economic evaluations. To estimate this cost, three steps are required: (1) identifying and quantifying the physical flows linked to the production and management of the outputs of healthcare interventions, (2) estimating the quantity of GHG that can be attributed to each physical flow, and (3) valuing these GHG emissions in monetary terms. Integrating the cost of GHG emissions into the calculation of the costs of healthcare interventions is both useful and relevant from a perspective of collective intergenerational well-being. This approach has been made possible thanks to the existence of accounting and monetary valuation methods for emissions. Agencies specialized in health economic evaluations could take up this issue to resolve ongoing questions, thus providing researchers with a methodological framework and public decision-makers with some key insights.

Accounting for planetary boundaries in health economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Health economic evaluation (HEE) provides guidance for decision-making in the face of scarcity but ignores ecological scarcities as long as they involve external costs only. Following the imperative to account for planetary health, this study explores how this blind spot can be addressed.

AREAS COVERED

The study is based on a critical review of relevant work, particularly in the fields of HEE and life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA can provide information on a technology's environmental impacts which can be accounted for on both the effect and cost sides of HEE. Cost-benefit analyses can incorporate environmental impacts in case vignettes used for eliciting consumers' willingness to pay. Existing LCA impact models can be used to estimate human health risks associated with environmental impacts and add them to the health benefits in cost-utility analyses. Many jurisdictions offer lists of shadow prices that can be used to incorporate environmental impacts on the cost side of HEE. Also, environmental impacts can be reported in a disaggregated manner.

EXPERT OPINION

Accounting for planetary boundaries is likely to become a key field of methodological innovation in HEE. Decision relevance is likely to be highest for technologies with similar cost-effectiveness but different ecological impacts.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments.

METHODS

We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Inclusion of Environmental Spillovers in Applied Economic Evaluations of Healthcare Products

OBJECTIVES

Climate change and environmental factors have an impact on human health and the ecosystem. The healthcare sector is responsible for substantial environmental pollution. Most healthcare systems rely on economic evaluation to select efficient alternatives. Nevertheless, environmental spillovers of healthcare treatments are rarely considered whether it is from a cost or a health perspective. The objective of this article is to identify economic evaluations of healthcare products and guidelines that have included any environmental dimensions.

METHODS

Electronic searches of 3 literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE) and official health agencies guidelines were conducted. Documents were considered eligible if they assessed the environmental spillovers within the economic evaluation of a healthcare product or provided any recommendations on the inclusion of environmental spillovers in the health technology assessment process.

RESULTS

From the 3878 records identified, 62 documents were deemed eligible and 18 were published in 2021 and 2022. The environmental spillovers considered were carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, water or energy consumption, and waste disposal. The environmental spillovers were mainly assessed using the lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach while the economic analysis was mostly limited to costs. Only 9 documents, including the guidelines of 2 health agencies presented theoretical and practical ways to include environmental spillovers into the decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear lack of methods on whether environmental spillovers should be included in health economic evaluation and how this should be done. If healthcare systems want to reduce their environment footprint, the development of methodology which integrates environmental dimensions in health technology assessment will be key.

Main Challenges of Incorporating Environmental Impacts in the Economic Evaluation of Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review

Health technology assessment (HTA) provides evidence-based information on healthcare technology to support decision making in many countries. Environmental impact is a relevant dimension of a health technology's value, but it has been poorly addressed in HTA processes in spite of the commitment that the health sector must have to contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change. This study aims to identify the state of the art and challenges for quantifying environmental impacts that could be incorporated into the economic evaluation (EE) of HTA. We performed a scoping review that included 22 articles grouped into four types of contribution: (1) concepts to draw up a theoretical framework, (2) HTA reports, (3) parameter designs or suitable indicators, and (4) economic or budgetary impact assessments. This review shows that evaluation of the environmental impact of HTAs is still very incipient. Small steps are being taken in EE, such as carbon footprint estimations from a life-cycle approach of technologies and the entire care pathway.

The impact of switching from single-use to reusable healthcare products: a transparency checklist and systematic review of life-cycle assessments

BACKGROUND

Replacing single-use products with reusable ones may reduce the environmental impact of healthcare. This study aimed to broadly assess the environmental effects of that substitution.

METHODS

A systematic review of comparative cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessments (LCAs) of single-use and reusable healthcare products was conducted. The main outcomes assessed were changes in the environmental impact that resulted after switching from single-use to reusable products. As no standardized transparency checklist was available, one was developed here using DIN ISO 14040/14044. The final checklist included 22 criteria used to appraise the included studies.

RESULTS

After screening, 27 studies were included in the analysis. The healthcare products were assigned to four categories: invasive medical devices, non-invasive medical devices, protection equipment and inhalers. The outcomes revealed a reduction in mean effect sizes for all environmental impacts except water use. Non-invasive medical devices have greater relative mitigation potential than invasive devices. On average, information on 64% of the transparency checklist items was reported. Gaps included the reporting of data quality requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to reusable healthcare products is likely to reduce most impacts on the environment except water use, but the effect size differs among product categories. Possible study limitations include location bias, no systematic search of the grey literature and small samples for some impacts. This study's strengths are its approach to product categories and developed transparency catalogue. This catalogue could be useful to inform and guide a future process towards creating a standardized transparency checklist for the systematic reviews of LCAs.

[Reducing the environmental impact of inhalers dispensed in France. From diagnosis to sustainable action]

OBJECTIVES

While inhaled drugs are mainly used to treat chronic respiratory diseases, they are also responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. To highlight this issue, a dispensed analysis and a carbon footprint evaluation of inhalers in France have been conducted.

METHODS

A national qualitative and quantitative analysis of dispensed inhalers in community pharmacies (CP) and hospitals (H) was conducted in France for 2019. A data review from the literature led to the determination of the inhalers carbon footprint, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) during the inhaler life cycle.

RESULTS

Close to 40 million inhalers were dispensed by community pharmacies and one million by hospitals in 2019. It concerned three types of inhalers: metered-dose inhalers (MDI) [CP: 49%; H: 45%], dry powder inhalers (DPI) [CP: 47%; H: 51%], and soft mist inhalers (SMI) [CP: 4%; H: 4%]. According to the literature, MDI have the highest carbon footprint, ranging from 11 to 28 kgCO2e versus less than 1 kgCO2e for DPI/SMI. In 2019, the national carbon footprint of salbutamol (MDI), the most dispensed inhaler, was estimated to be over 310 million kgCO2e (CP+H) corresponding to more than 310,000 round-trip Paris-New York.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the involvement of MDI in GHG emissions. Taking actions as part of a global and coordinated approach to limit their environmental impact is possible and thus is a priority.

Impact of choice of inhalers for asthma care on global carbon footprint and societal costs: a long-term economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

While effective asthma control medications reduce the burden of asthma, a significant subgroup of these treatments, namely metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), produce substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, thus contributing to climate change. This study quantified the global climate impact (i.e. carbon dioxide equivalent [CO₂e] emissions) and costs of long-term status quo asthma inhaler use versus alternative scenarios substituting MDIs with propellant-free dry powder inhalers (DPIs).

METHODS

Three scenarios were evaluated across 10-year (2020-2030) and 50-year (2020-2070) time horizons: A (status quo inhaler use), B and C (2% and 5% year-over-year substitution of MDIs with DPIs, respectively). Global inhaler volumes and costs at baseline were sourced from IQVIA, then projected using UN and WHO trends in per capita GDP, urbanization, and asthma population growth. Inhaler spending was assumed to fall by 90% following generic entry in 2030. The carbon footprint per inhaler and health damage factors for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were derived from literature. The US government's central and high-impact estimates for the social cost of carbon (SCC) were used to calculate emissions costs.

RESULTS

Over 50 years, scenario A resulted in 826 million tonnes of CO₂e emissions globally, with an associated SCC between 21% and 65% of the projected global spending on asthma inhalers. In comparison, CO₂e emissions were reduced by 38% and 58% in Scenarios B and C, respectively, and DALYs improved by 33 and 51%. Depending on SCC estimates, Scenarios B and C increased global costs by 7.3% and 16.5%, respectively (central SCC), or decreased costs by 4.2% and 2.6% (high-impact SCC) versus Scenario A. Over 10 years, Scenario A resulted in 97 million tonnes of CO₂e emissions globally, with an associated SCC between 4.4% and 12.2% of projected spending. In comparison, Scenarios B and C were associated with 12% and 24% reductions in CO₂e emissions and improvements in DALYs by 11.5% and 22.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Global efforts by environmental and health-policy decision-makers to substitute currently available MDIs with DPIs for asthma control would result in substantial reductions in GHG emissions with manageable costs, or potential cost savings, depending on the SCC. Policies that decrease use of MDIs warrant global attention.

[Do patients deliver inhalers correctly? The AIRE project]

OBJECTIVES

To assess users' attitudes and knowledge of users about how and where inhalers are removed after finalizing their use, and to describe their opinion about utilizing re-usable inhalers.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, multi-center, and opinion survey, conducted to assess behavior and attitudes regarding the disposal of inhalers recycling and the use of re-usable inhalers, through the application of an ad hoc questionnaire about the knowledge and attitudes, with data about the use and recycling of inhalers.

RESULTS

A total of 303 subjects (57.5±19.9 years; time of inhalers' use 9.6±9.8 years; asthma/COPD: 46.2%/25.7%) were included. Pressurized metered-dose inhalers were the most commonly used inhalers (30.5%). Most users considered the recycling of inhalers to be very important (7.75±2.76, out of 10), and rated highly the availability of having a monthly rechargeable inhaler every 6 months (7.77±2.79, out of 10). Only 33% of users had been informed by their healthcare professionals about the place of delivering the inhaler. With respect to recycling, 42.9% of all users recycled in the SIGRE point of the pharmacy. Regarding the final destination of inhalers, 43.6% thought that the removed inhalers were recycled or destroyed, but 35.3% did not know what would happen to the inhalers after placing in the SIGRE point.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite users considered the importance of inhalers recycling and the availability of re-usable inhalers, a significant proportion does not recycle in the SIGRE point, has not been informed about the appropriate place of delivering the inhaler and ignores what happens to inhalers. Information campaigns are warranted.