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

Equity in national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: Essential or extraneous?

BACKGROUND

The focus on health maximisation in a healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) - that is health gains are of equal value regardless of the recipient- has significant implications as health systems attempt to address persistent and growing health inequities. This study aimed to systematically compare and contrast the equity principles of different health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and how equity is addressed in HEE guidelines.

METHODS

HTA agencies were identified through the ISPOR, GEAR, iDSI, HTAi, INAHTA, HTAsiaLink, and RedETSA websites in June 2021 and updated in August 2023. Agencies websites were then searched to retrieve HEE guidelines. The guidelines were grouped into two categories: well-established and newly-developed agency guidelines, based on whether or not they published their first guidelines before 2009. Data extracted summarised the methodological details in the reference cases, including specifics on how equity featured and in what role. In those agencies where equity did not feature explicitly in the HEE guidelines, an additional search of the agency website was undertaken to understand if equity featured in those agencies' decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

The study included 46 guidelines from 51 countries. Only 30% of the guidelines were explicit about the equity assumptions. Health equity (using a broad definition) was mentioned in 29 guidelines and 14 included a specific definition while only seven recommended specific methods to incorporate inequalities. Addressing equity concerns was usually suggested as an additional analyses rather than a key part of the assessment. It was unclear how equity was incorporated into decision-making processes. In addition, equity was mentioned in other guidance - such as decision-making frameworks - provided by five agencies that did not mention it in the HEE guidelines, and 7 of 14 topic selection criteria that were identified.

CONCLUSION

Equity is given less attention than efficiency in HEE guidelines. This indicates that HTA agencies while subscribing to an extra-welfarist approach have a narrow evaluative space - focusing on maximising health and not considering the opportunity cost of the equity constraint. The omission of equity and the lack of systematic approaches in guidelines poses a threat to the international endeavours to reduce inequities. It is timely for HTA agencies to reconsider their positions on equity explicitly.

Next-generation sequencing in oncology: challenges in economic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) identifies genetic variants to inform personalized treatment plans. Insufficient evidence of cost-effectiveness impedes the integration of NGS into routine cancer care. The complexity of personalized treatment challenges conventional economic evaluation. Clearly delineating challenges informs future cost-effectiveness analyses to better value and contextualize health, preference-, and equity-based outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a scoping review to characterize the applied methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of NGS in oncology and identify existing challenges. We included 27 articles published since 2016 from a search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Identified challenges included defining the evaluative scope, managing evidentiary limitations including lack of causal evidence, incorporating preference-based utility, and assessing distributional and equity-based impacts. These challenges reflect the difficulty of generating high-quality clinical effectiveness and real-world evidence (RWE) for NGS-guided interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

Adapting methodological approaches and developing life-cycle health technology assessment (HTA) guidance using RWE is crucial for implementing NGS in oncology. Healthcare systems, decision-makers, and HTA organizations are facing a pivotal opportunity to adapt to an evolving clinical paradigm and create innovative regulatory and reimbursement processes that will enable more sustainable, equitable, and patient-oriented healthcare.

The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments Concept-Current Opportunities and Recommendations

For vaccine development and adoption decisions, the 'Full Value of Vaccine Assessment' (FVVA) framework has been proposed by the WHO to expand the range of evidence available to support the prioritization of candidate vaccines for investment and eventual uptake by low- and middle-income countries. Recent applications of the FVVA framework have already shown benefits. Building on the success of these applications, we see important new opportunities to maximize the future utility of FVVAs to country and global stakeholders and provide a proof-of-concept for analyses in other areas of disease control and prevention. These opportunities include the following: (1) FVVA producers should aim to create evidence that explicitly meets the needs of multiple key FVVA consumers, (2) the WHO and other key stakeholders should develop standardized methodologies for FVVAs, as well as guidance for how different stakeholders can explicitly reflect their values within the FVVA framework, and (3) the WHO should convene experts to further develop and prioritize the research agenda for outcomes and benefits relevant to the FVVA and elucidate methodological approaches and opportunities for standardization not only for less well-established benefits, but also for any relevant research gaps. We encourage FVVA stakeholders to engage with these opportunities.

A Research Framework to Improve Health Disparity Evidence Gaps in Value Assessments

A value assessment is intended as a tool for evaluating healthcare treatments to gauge value and inform decisions. Economic value assessments typically incorporate a cost-effectiveness analysis, focusing on costs and health outcomes important to payers, missing important information to ensure existing markets optimize resource allocation. Despite frequent calls for more explicit consideration of health equity impacts in value assessments, health economists continue to develop models informed by traditional cost and quality-of-life data that do not capture differences experienced by health disparity populations. This conceptual paper proposes a research framework to enhance data collection and analysis to address these gaps and better quantify the value of a health innovation, and better assess how a new intervention impacts health disparities. The framework comprises three distinct phases that build on one another: (1) contextualization of lived experiences for disadvantaged communities; (2) individual-level quantification of health disparities for cost and quality-of-life measures; and (3) quantifying community-level impacts.

Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making

Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0-1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.

Quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes

Background: Novel therapies in metastatic cancers have contributed to improvements in survival outcomes, yet real-world data suggest that improvements may be mainly driven by those patient groups who already had the highest survival outcomes. This study aimed to develop and apply a framework for quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes based on published aggregate data. Methods: Nine (N = 9) novel therapies for metastatic breast cancer (mBC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) were identified, 3 for each cancer type. Individual patient data (IPD) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were replicated from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. For each cancer type, data were pooled for the novel therapies and comparators separately and weighted based on sample size to ensure equal contribution of each therapy in the analyses. Parametric (mixture) distributions were fitted to the weighted data to model and extrapolate survival. The inequality in survival was defined by the absolute difference between groups with the highest and lowest survival for 2 stratifications: one for which survival was stratified into 2 groups and one using 5 groups. Additionally, a linear regression model was fitted to survival estimates for the 5 groups, with the regression coefficient or slope considered as the inequality gradient (IG). The impact of the pooled novel therapies was subsequently defined as the change in survival inequality relative to the pooled comparator therapies. A probabilistic analysis was performed to quantify parameter uncertainty. Results: The analyses found that novel therapies were associated with significant increases in inequalities in survival outcomes relative to their comparators, except in terms of OS for mNSCLC. For mBC, the inequalities in OS increased by 13.9 (95% CI: 1.4; 26.6) months, or 25.0%, if OS was stratified in 5 groups. The IG for mBC increased by 3.2 (0.3; 6.1) months, or 24.7%. For mCRC, inequalities increased by 6.7 (3.0; 10.5) months, or 40.4%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 1.6 (0.7; 2.4) months, or 40.2%. For mNSCLC, inequalities decreased by 14.9 (-84.5; 19.0) months, or 12.2%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG decreased by 2.0 (-16.1; 5.1) months, or 5.5%. Results for the stratification based on 2 groups demonstrated significant increases in OS inequality for all cancer types. In terms of PFS, the increases in survival inequalities were larger in a relative sense compared with OS. For mBC, PFS inequalities increased by 8.7 (5.9; 11.6) months, or 71.7%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 2.0 (1.3; 2.6) months, or 67.6%. For mCRC, PFS inequalities increased by 5.4 (4.2; 6.6) months, or 147.6%, for the same stratification. The IG increased by 1.3 (1.1; 1.6) months, or 172.7%. For mNSCLC, inequalities increased by 18.2 (12.5; 24.4) months, or 93.8%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG increased by 4.0 (2.8; 5.4) months, or 88.1%. Results from the stratification based on 2 groups were similar. Conclusion: Novel therapies for mBC, mCRC, and mNSCLC are generally associated with significant increases in survival inequalities relative to their comparators in randomized controlled trials, though inequalities in OS for mNSCLC decreased nonsignificantly when stratified based on 5 groups. Although further research using real-world IPD is warranted to assess how, for example, social determinants of health affect the impact of therapies on health inequalities among patient groups, the proposed framework can provide important insights in the absence of such data.

Estimating the US Baseline Distribution of Health Inequalities Across Race, Ethnicity, and Geography for Equity-Informative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Information on how life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy varies across equity-relevant subgroups is required to conduct distributional cost-effectiveness analysis. These summary measures are not comprehensively available in the United States, given limitations in nationally representative data across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

Through linkage of US national survey data sets and use of Bayesian models to address missing and suppressed mortality data, we estimate health outcomes across 5 racial and ethnic subgroups (non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic). Mortality, disability, and social determinant of health data were combined to estimate sex- and age-based outcomes for equity-relevant subgroups based on race and ethnicity, as well as county-level social vulnerability.

RESULTS

Life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth declined from 79.5, 69.4, and 64.3 years, respectively, among the 20% least socially vulnerable (best-off) counties to 76.8, 63.6, and 61.1 years, respectively, among the 20% most socially vulnerable (worst-off) counties. Considering differences across racial and ethnic subgroups, as well as geography, gaps between the best-off (Asian and Pacific Islander; 20% least socially vulnerable counties) and worst-off (American Indian/Alaska Native; 20% most socially vulnerable counties) subgroups were large (17.6 life-years, 20.9 disability-free life-years, and 18.0 quality-adjusted life-years) and increased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing disparities in health across geographies and racial and ethnic subgroups may lead to distributional differences in the impact of health interventions. Data from this study support routine estimation of equity effects in healthcare decision making, including distributional cost-effectiveness analysis.

Eliciting Trade-Offs Between Equity and Efficiency: A Methodological Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To identify differences in the approaches and results of studies that elicit equity-efficiency trade-offs that can inform equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis for healthcare resource allocation.

METHODS

We searched Ovid (Medline), EconLit, and Scopus prior to June 25, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (1) peer-reviewed or (2) gray literature; (3) published in English; (4) survey-based; (5) parameterized a social welfare function to quantify inequality aversion or (6) elicited a trade-off in equity and efficiency characteristics of health interventions. Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies that did not conduct a trade-off or (2) theoretical studies. We abstracted details on study methods, results, and limitations. Studies were grouped by following approach: (1) social welfare function or (2) preference ranking and distributional weighting. We described findings separately for each approach category.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven papers were included, 28 parameterized social welfare functions and 49 were classified as preference ranking and distributional weighting. Study methods were heterogeneous. Studies were conducted across 29 countries. Sample sizes and composition, survey methods and question framing varied. Preferences for equity were mixed. Across both approach categories: 39 studies were classified as clear evidence of inequality aversion; 33 found mixed evidence; and 4 had no evidence of aversion. Evidence of between and within-study heterogeneity was found. Preferences for equity may differ by gender, profession, political ideology, income, and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variability in study methods limit the direct comparability of findings and their use in equity-informed cost-effectiveness analysis. Future researches using representative samples that explore within and between country heterogeneity is needed.

Equity-Informative Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: A Systematic Literature Review

The Immunization Agenda 2030 prioritizes the populations without access to vaccines. Health equity has been increasingly incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccines to foster equitable access. Robust and standardized methods are needed to evaluate the health equity impact of vaccination programs to ensure monitoring and effective addressing of inequities. However, methods currently in place vary and potentially affect the application of findings to inform policy decision-making. We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Econlit, and the CEA Registry up to 15 December 2022 to identify equity-informative economic evaluations of vaccines. Twenty-one studies were included that performed health equity impact analysis to estimate the distributional impact of vaccines, such as deaths averted and financial risk protection, across equity-relevant subgroups. These studies showed that the introduction of vaccines or improved vaccination coverage resulted in fewer deaths and higher financial risk benefits in subpopulations with higher disease burdens and lower vaccination coverage-particularly poorer income groups and those living in rural areas. In conclusion, methods to incorporate equity have been evolving progressively. Vaccination programs can enhance equity if their design and implementation address existing inequities in order to provide equitable vaccination coverage and achieve health equity.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies: Data Requirements and Challenges

Governments and health technology assessment agencies are putting greater focus on and efforts in understanding and addressing health inequities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to evaluate the costs and health gains of different interventions to inform the decision-making process on funding of new treatments. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness analysis that quantifies the equity impact of funding new treatments. Key challenges for the routine and consistent implementation of DCEA are the lack of clearly defined equity concerns from decision makers and endorsed measures to define equity subgroups and the availability of evidence that allows analysis of differences in data inputs associated with the equity characteristics of interest. In this article, we detail the data gaps and challenges to build robust DCEA analysis routinely in health technology assessment and suggest actions to overcome these hurdles.

Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness is a tool to maximize health benefits and to improve efficiency in healthcare. However, efficient outcomes are not always the most equitable ones. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) offers a framework for incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to outline the challenges and limitations in applying DCEA in healthcare settings.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Scopus, BASE, APA Psych, and JSTOR databases. We also included Google Scholar. We searched for English-language peer-reviewed academic publications, while books, editorials and commentary papers were excluded. Titles and abstract screening, full-text screening, reference list reviews, and data extraction were performed by the main researcher. Another researcher checked every paper for eligibility. Details, such as study population, disease area, intervention and comparators, costs and health effects, cost-effectiveness findings, equity analysis and effects, and modelling technique, were extracted. Thematic analysis was applied, focusing on challenges, obstacles, and gaps in DCEA.

RESULTS

In total, 615 references were identified, of which 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were published after 2017. DCEA studies were mainly conducted in Europe and Africa and used quality health-adjusted measurements. In the included studies, absolute inequality indices were used more frequently than relative inequality indices. Every stage of the DCEA presented challenges and/or limitations.

CONCLUSION

This review provides an overview of the literature on the DCEA in healthcare as well as the challenges and limitations related to the different steps needed to conduct the analysis. In particular, we found problems with data availability, the relative unfamiliarity of this analysis among policymakers, and challenges in estimating differences among socioeconomic groups.

A guideline for economic evaluations of vaccines and immunization programs in China

This study aimed to develop a consensus framework for economic evaluations of vaccines as a national guideline in China. Some unique and important aspects were particularly emphasized. Nineteen Chinese experts in the field of health economics and immunization decision-making were nominated to select and discuss relevant aspects of vaccine economic evaluations in China. A workshop attended by external experts was held to summarize unique and important aspects and formulate consensus recommendations. There were ten unique and/or important aspects identified for economic evaluations of vaccines in China, including study perspectives, comparator strategies, analysis types, model choices, costing approaches, utility measures, discounting, uncertainty, equity, and evaluation purposes. Background information and expert recommendations were provided for each aspect. Economic evaluations of vaccines should play an important role in China's immunization policy-making. This guideline can help improve the quality of economic evaluations as a good practice consensus.

Health Inequalities: To What Extent are Decision-Makers and Economic Evaluations on the Same Page? An English Case Study

Economic evaluations have increasingly sought to understand how funding decisions within care sectors impact health inequalities. However, there is a disconnect between the methods used by researchers (e.g., within universities) and analysts (e.g., within publicly funded commissioning agencies), compared to evidence needs of decision makers in regard to how health inequalities are accounted for and presented. Our objective is to explore how health inequality is defined and quantified in different contexts. We focus on how specific approaches have developed, what similarities and differences have emerged, and consider how disconnects can be bridged. We explore existing methodological research regarding the incorporation of inequality considerations into economic evaluation in order to understand current best practice. In parallel, we explore how localised decision makers incorporate inequality considerations into their commissioning processes. We use the English care setting as a case study, from which we make inference as how local commissioning has evolved internationally. We summarise the recent development of distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in the economic evaluation literature: a method that makes explicit the trade-off between efficiency and equity. In the parallel decision-making setting, while the alleviation of health inequality is regularly the focus of remits, few details have been formalised regarding its definition or quantification. While data development has facilitated the reporting and comparison of metrics of inequality to inform commissioning decisions, these tend to focus on measures of care utilisation and behaviour rather than measures of health. While both researchers and publicly funded commissioning agencies are increasingly putting the identification of health inequalities at the core of their actions, little consideration has been given to ensuring that they are approaching the problem in a consistent way. The extent to which researchers and commissioning agencies can collaborate on best practice has important implications for how successful policy is in addressing health inequalities.