Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns

Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks

Background

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice.

Methods

We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).

Results

Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.

Exploring the association between multidimensional poverty and antenatal care utilization in two provinces of Papua New Guinea: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although global poverty rates have declined in the last decade, the fall in the Asia-Pacific region has been slow relative to the rest of the world. Poverty continues to be a major cause of poor maternal and newborn health, and a barrier to accessing timely antenatal care. Papua New Guinea has one of the highest poverty rates and some of the worst maternal and neonatal outcomes in the Asia-Pacific region. Few studies have investigated equity in antenatal care utilization in this setting. We explored equity in antenatal care utilization and the determinants of service utilization, which include a measure of multidimensional poverty in Papua New Guinea.

METHODS

To explore the association between poverty and antenatal care utilization this study uses data from a ten-cluster randomized controlled trial. The poverty headcount, average poverty gap, adjusted poverty headcount, and multidimensional poverty index of antenatal clinic attendees are derived using the Alkire-Foster method. The distribution of service utilization is explored using the multidimensional poverty index, followed by multivariate regression analyses to evaluate the determinants of service utilization.

RESULTS

The poverty headcount was 61.06%, the average poverty gap 47.71%, the adjusted poverty headcount 29.13% and the average multidimensional poverty index was 0.363. Further, antenatal care utilization was regressive with respect to poverty. The regression analyses indicated that older women; being a widow (small number of widows (n = 3) asserts interpreting result with caution); or formally employed increase the likelihood of accessing antenatal care more often in pregnancy. Travelling for over an hour to receive care was negatively associated with utilization.

CONCLUSION

This study indicated high levels of multidimensional poverty in PNG and that ANC utilization was regressive; highlighting the need to encourage pregnant women, especially those who are economically more vulnerable to visit clinics regularly throughout pregnancy.

Public deliberation on health gain measures

Researchers and decision-makers use health gain measures to assess the value of health interventions. However, our current understanding of how these measures are understandable and accessible to the community is limited. This study examined a diverse group of stakeholders' attitudes and preferences for 9 commonly used health gain measures. We recruited 20 stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and citizens. We conducted 2 in-person deliberative meetings in which participants learned, discussed, deliberated on, and ranked 9 health gain measures. The final ranking conducted after unified deliberation showed the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the top-ranked measure, followed by the clinical benefit rating method used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). We identified 3 themes during deliberations: the importance of using patient values in population-based health gain measures, examining complementary measures together, and choosing measures that are intuitive and easy to understand. Future policymaking should consider incorporating the QALY, clinical benefit rating, and MCDA into prioritization decisions.

Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.

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.

A more equitable approach to economic evaluation: Directly developing conceptual capability wellbeing attributes for Tanzania and Malawi

Capability wellbeing can potentially provide a holistic outcome for health economic evaluation and the capability approach seems promising for African countries. As yet there is no work that has explored the evaluative space needed for health and care decision making at the whole population level and procedures that merely translate existing measures developed in the global north to contexts in the global south risk embedding structural inequalities. This work seeks to elicit the concepts within the capability wellbeing evaluative space for general adult populations in Tanzania and Malawi. Semi-structured interviews with 68 participants across Tanzania and Malawi were conducted between October 2021 and July 2022. Analysis used thematic coding frames and the writing of analytic accounts. Interview schedules were common across the two country settings, however data collection and analysis were conducted independently by two separate teams and only brought together once it was clear that the data from the two countries was sufficiently aligned for a single analysis. Eight common attributes of capability wellbeing were found across the two countries: financial security; basic needs; achievement and personal development; attachment, love and friendship; participation in community activities; faith and spirituality; health; making decisions without unwanted interference. These attributes can be used to generate outcome measures for use in economic evaluations comparing alternative health interventions. By centring the voices of Tanzanians and Malawians in the construction of attributes that describe a good life, the research can facilitate greater equity within economic evaluations across different global settings.

Capturing the Value of Vaccination within Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics-Practical Considerations for Expanding Valuation by Including Key Concepts

Following the development of a value of vaccination (VoV) framework for health technology assessment/cost-effectiveness analysis (HTA/CEA), and identification of three vaccination benefits for near-term inclusion in HTA/CEA, this final paper provides decision makers with methods and examples to consider benefits of health systems strengthening (HSS), equity, and macroeconomic gains. Expert working groups, targeted literature reviews, and case studies were used. Opportunity cost methods were applied for HSS benefits of rotavirus vaccination. Vaccination, with HSS benefits included, reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) by 1.4-50.5% (to GBP 11,552-GBP 23,016) depending on alternative conditions considered. Distributional CEA was applied for health equity benefits of meningococcal vaccination. Nearly 80% of prevented cases were among the three most deprived groups. Vaccination, with equity benefits included, reduced the ICER by 22-56% (to GBP 7014-GBP 12,460), depending on equity parameters. Macroeconomic models may inform HTA deliberative processes (e.g., disease impact on the labour force and the wider economy), or macroeconomic outcomes may be assessed for individuals in CEAs (e.g., impact on non-health consumption, leisure time, and income). These case studies show how to assess broader vaccination benefits in current HTA/CEA, providing decision makers with more accurate and complete VoV assessments. More work is needed to refine inputs and methods, especially for macroeconomic gains.

Evaluating equity-promoting interventions to prevent race-based inequities in influenza outcomes

Importance

Seasonal influenza hospitalizations pose a considerable burden in the United States, with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color) communities being disproportionately affected.

Objective

To determine and quantify the effects of different types of mitigation strategies on inequities in influenza outcomes (symptomatic infections and hospitalizations).

Design

In this simulation study, we fit a race-stratified agent-based model of influenza transmission to demographic and hospitalization data of the United States.

Participants

We consider five racial-ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White persons, non- Hispanic Black persons, non-Hispanic Asian persons, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons, and Hispanic or Latino persons.

Setting

We tested five idealized equity-promoting interventions to determine their effectiveness in reducing inequity in influenza outcomes. The interventions assumed (i) equalized vaccination rates, (ii) equalized comorbidities, (iii) work-risk distribution proportional to the distribution of the population, (iv) reduced work contacts for all, or (v) a combination of equalizing vaccination rates and comorbidities and reducing work contacts.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reduction in symptomatic or hospitalization risk ratios, defined as the ratio of the number of symptomatic infections (hospitalizations respectively) in each age- and racial-ethnic group and their corresponding white counterpart. We also evaluated the reduction in the absolute mean number of symptomatic infections or hospitalizations in each age- and racial-ethnic group compared to the fitted scenario (baseline).

Results

Our analysis suggests that symptomatic infections were equalized and reduced (by up to 17% in BIPOC adults aged 18-49) by strategies reducing work contacts or equalizing vaccination rates. Reducing comorbidities resulted in significant decreases in hospitalizations, with a reduction of over 40% in BIPOC groups. All tested interventions reduced the inequity in influenza hospitalizations in all racial-ethnic groups, but interventions reducing comorbidities in marginalized populations were the most effective. Notably, these interventions resulted in better outcomes across all racial-ethnic groups, not only those prioritized by the interventions.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this simulation modeling study, equalizing vaccination rates and reducing number of work contacts (which are relatively simple strategies to implement) reduced the both the inequity in hospitalizations and the absolute number of symptomatic infections and hospitalizations in all age and racial-ethnic groups.

Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Evaluating healthcare interventions for their impacts beyond health outcomes may result in recognition of changes in human capital, income level, tax revenue, and government spending, which could affect economic growth and population health. In this paper, we document instances where current health technology assessment (HTA) practices fail to account for the impacts of healthcare interventions on broader society beyond the healthcare sector.

METHODS

We propose a novel conceptual framework, highlighting its three components (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis [DCEA], input-output model, and voting scheme) and their contributions to capturing the economic and societal ripple effects of healthcare interventions. This manuscript also outlines a case study in which the framework is applied to the reassessment of a previously evaluated digital health therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) compared with standard of care, demonstrating its practical application.

RESULTS

The DCEA health value metric indicates that digital therapeutic is more equitable, favoring socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, while standard of care exacerbates health inequality by benefiting the already advantaged. Additionally, digital therapeutic shows potential for boosting productivity, raising income, and creating jobs, supporting its consideration by employer-sponsored health plans to optimize resource allocation for treating OUD.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual framework provides insights for enhancing HTAs to incorporate the broader economic and societal impacts of healthcare interventions. By integrating DCEA, extended HTA analysis with input-output modeling, and a voting scheme, decision makers can make informed choices aligned with societal priorities, although further research and validation are necessary for practical implementation across diverse healthcare contexts.

A systematic review of the modelling and economic evaluation studies assessing regulatory options for e-cigarette use

BACKGROUND

Governments around the world are considering regulating access to nicotine e-cigarettes to prevent uptake among youth however people that smoke tobacco may use them to assist with smoking cessation. The health and cost implications of regulating e-cigarette use among populations are unknown but have been explored in modelling studies. We reviewed health economic evaluation and simulation modelling studies that assessed long-term consequences and interpret their potential usefulness for decision-makers.

METHODS

A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Six databases were searched for modelling studies evaluating population-level e-cigarette control policies or interventions restricting e-cigarette use versus more liberalized use. Studies were required to report the outcomes of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and/or healthcare costs. The quality of the studies was assessed using two quality assessment tools.

RESULTS

In total, 15 studies were included with nine for the United States and one each for the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and New Zealand. Three studies included cost-utility analyses. Most studies involved health state transition (or Markov) closed cohort models. Many studies had limitations with their model structures, data input quality and transparency, and insufficient analyses handling model uncertainty. Findings were mixed with 11 studies concluding that policies permitting e-cigarette use lead to net benefits and 4 studies concluding net losses in life-years or QALYs and/or healthcare costs.Five studies had industry conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

While authors did conclude net benefit than net harm in more of the studies so far conducted, the significant limitations that we identified with many of the studies in this review, make it uncertain whether or not countries can expect net population harms or benefits of restrictive versus unrestrictive e-cigarette policies. The generalizability of the findings is limited for decision-makers. In light of the deep uncertainty around the health and economic outcomes of e-cigarettes, simulation modelling methods and uncertainty analyses should be strengthened.

[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.

Life expectancy gains from dietary modifications: a comparative modeling study in 7 countries

BACKGROUND

Eating healthier is associated with a range of favorable health outcomes. Our previous model estimated the impact of dietary changes on life expectancy gains but did not consider height, weight, or physical activity.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to estimate the increase in life expectancy resulting from the transition from typical national dietary patterns to longevity-optimizing dietary changes, more feasible dietary modifications, and optimized vegan dietary changes in China, France, Germany, Iran, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

METHODS

Our modeling study used data from meta-analyses presenting dose-response relationships between intake of 15 food groups and mortality. Background mortality data were from the Global Burden of Disease Study. We used national food intake data and adjusted for height, weight, and physical activity level.

RESULTS

For 40-y-olds, estimated life expectancy gains ranged from 6.2 y (with uncertainty interval [UI]: 5.7, 7.5 y) for Chinese females to 9.7 y (UI: 8.1, 11.3 y) for United States males following sustained changes from typical country-specific dietary patterns to longevity-optimized dietary changes, and from 5.2 y (UI: 4.0, 6.5 y) for Chinese females to 8.7 y (UI: 7.1, 10.3 y) for United States males following changes to optimized vegan dietary changes.

CONCLUSIONS

A sustained change from country-specific typical dietary pattern patterns to longevity-optimized dietary changes, more feasible dietary changes, or optimized vegan dietary changes are all projected to result in substantial life expectancy gains across ages and countries. These changes included more whole grains, legumes, and nuts and less red/processed meats and sugars and sugar-sweetened beverages. The largest gains from dietary changes would be in the United States.

Economic Evaluations of Obesity-Targeted Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB) Taxes-A Review to Identify Methodological Issues

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluations of public health interventions like sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes face difficulties similar to those previously identified in other public health areas. This stems from challenges in accurately attributing effects, capturing outcomes and costs beyond health, and integrating equity effects. This review examines how these challenges were addressed in economic evaluations of SSB taxes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of SSB taxes focused on addressing obesity in adults, published up to February 2021. The methodological challenges examined include measuring effects, valuing outcomes, assessing costs, and incorporating equity.

RESULTS

Fourteen economic evaluations of SSB taxes were identified. Across these evaluations, estimating SSB tax effects was uncertain due to a reliance on indirect evidence that was less robust than evidence from randomised controlled trials. Health outcomes, like quality-adjusted life years, along with a healthcare system perspective for costs, dominated the evaluations of SSB taxes, with a limited focus on broader non-health consequences. Equity analyses were common but employed significantly different approaches and exhibited varying degrees of quality.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the methodological challenges remains an issue for economic evaluations of public health interventions like SSB taxes, suggesting the need for increased attention on those issues in future studies. Dedicated methodological guidelines, in particular addressing the measurement of effect and incorporation of equity impacts, are warranted.

The prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes by periodontal treatment during pregnancy (PROBE) intervention study-A controlled intervention study: Protocol paper

INTRODUCTION

Pregnancy increases the risk of periodontitis due to the increase in progesterone and estrogen. Moreover, periodontitis during pregnancy is associated with development of pregnancy and birth related complications. The aim of this study is to determine, whether periodontal treatment during pregnancy can reduce systemic inflammation and lower the risk of adverse pregnancy and birth related outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PROBE study is a non-randomized controlled intervention study conducted among 600 pregnant women with periodontitis. The women will be recruited among all pregnant women at two Danish hospitals in Region Zealand during their nuchal translucency scan and will subsequently be screened for periodontitis. The intervention group includes 300 pregnant women, who will be offered state-of-the-art periodontal treatment during pregnancy. The control group includes additional 300 pregnant women, who will be offered periodontal treatment after giving birth. Outcome measures include periodontal measures, inflammatory, hormonal and glycaemic markers as well as the prevalence of preterm birth risk, low birth weight and risk markers of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and preeclampsia that will be collected from all screened women and further during pregnancy week 20 and pregnancy week 35 for women enrolled in the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study's findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences and through social media. The PROBE study is designed to provide important new knowledge as to whether periodontal treatment during pregnancy can reduce the prevalence of complications related to pregnancy and birth.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06110143).

Patients with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: A Markov decision analysis of esophagectomy versus active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

Chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment option for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure, and recent evidence suggests select patients may benefit from omitting or delaying surgery. This study aims to compare surgery versus active surveillance for LAEC patients with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used. The base case was a 60-year-old man with T3N0M0 esophageal cancer with cCR after nCRT. The decision was modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Probabilities and utilities were derived through the literature. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed using ranges from the literature with consideration for clinical plausibility.

RESULTS

Surgery was favored for survival with an expected life-years of 2.89 versus 2.64. After incorporating quality of life, active surveillance was favored, with an expected QALY of 1.70 versus 1.56. The model was sensitive to probability of recurrence on active surveillance (threshold value 0.598), probability of recurrence being resectable (0.318), and disutility of previous esophagectomy (-0.091). The model was not sensitive to perioperative morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study finds that surgery increases life expectancy but decreases QALY. Although the incremental change in QALY for either modality is insufficient to make broad clinical recommendations, our study demonstrates that either approach is acceptable. As probabilities of key factors are further defined in the literature, treatment decisions for patients with LAEC and a cCR after nCRT should consider histology, patient values, and quality of life.

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 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.

The Limitations and Potentials of Evaluating Economic Aspects of Community-Based Health Promotion: A Critical Review

Community-based health promotion (CBHP) interventions are promising approaches to address public health problems; however, their economic evaluation presents unique challenges. This review aims to explore the opportunities and limitations of evaluating economic aspects of CBHP, focusing on the assessment of intervention costs and outcomes, and the consideration of political-level changes and health equity. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo databases identified 24 CBHP interventions, the majority of which targeted disadvantaged communities. Only five interventions included a detailed cost/resource assessment. Outcomes at the operational level were mainly quantitative, related to sociodemographics and environment or health status, while outcomes at the political level were often qualitative, related to public policy, capacity building or networks/collaboration. The study highlights the limitations of traditional health economic evaluation methods in capturing the complexity of CBHP interventions. It proposes the use of cost-consequence analysis (CCA) as a more comprehensive approach, offering a flexible and multifaceted assessment of costs and outcomes. However, challenges remain in the measurement and valuation of outcomes, equity considerations, intersectoral costs and attribution of effects. While CCA is a promising starting point, further research and methodological advancements are needed to refine its application and improve decision making in CBHP.

Ignored and undervalued in public health: a systematic review of health state utility values associated with syphilis infection

BACKGROUND

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection causing significant global morbidity and mortality. To inform policymaking and economic evaluation studies for syphilis, we summarised utility and disability weights for health states associated with syphilis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, searching six databases for economic evaluations and primary valuation studies related to syphilis from January 2000 to February 2022. We extracted health state utility values or disability weights, including identification of how these were derived. The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021230035).

FINDINGS

Of 3401 studies screened, 22 economic evaluations, two primary studies providing condition-specific measures, and 13 burden of disease studies were included. Fifteen economic evaluations reported outcomes as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and seven reported quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Fourteen of 15 economic evaluations that used DALYS based their values on the original Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study from 1990 (published in 1996). For the seven QALY-related economic evaluations, the methodology varied between studies, with some studies using assumptions and others creating utility weights or converting them from disability weights.

INTERPRETATION

We found a limited evidence base for the valuation of health states for syphilis, a lack of transparency for the development of existing health state utility values, and inconsistencies in the application of these values to estimate DALYs and QALYs. Further research is required to expand the evidence base so that policymakers can access accurate and well-informed economic evaluations to allocate resources to address syphilis and implement syphilis programs that are cost-effective.

The Health Inequality Impact of a New Cancer Therapy Given Treatment and Disease Characteristics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a simulation study to quantify the health inequality impact of a cancer therapy given cancer and treatment characteristics using the distributional cost-effectiveness framework.

METHODS

The following factors were varied in 10 000 simulations: lifetime risk of the disease, median overall survival (OS) with standard of care (SOC), difference in OS between non-Hispanic (NH)-Black and NH-White patients (prognostic effect), treatment effect of the new therapy relative to SOC, whether the treatment effect differs between NH-Black and NH-White patients (effect modification), health utility, drug costs, and preprogression and postprogression costs. Based on these characteristics, the incremental population net health benefits were calculated for the new therapy and applied to a US distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth. The health inequality impact was quantified as the difference in the degree of inequality in the "post-new therapy" versus "pre-new therapy" quality-adjusted life expectancy distributions.

RESULTS

For cancer types characterized by relatively large lifetime risk, large median OS with SOC, large treatment effect, and large effect modification, the direction of the impact of the new therapy on inequality is easy to predict. When effect modification is minor or absent, which is a realistic scenario, the direction of the inequality impact is difficult to predict. Larger incremental drug costs have a worsening effect on health inequality.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide a guide to help decision makers and other stakeholders make an initial assessment whether a new therapy with known treatment effects for a specific tumor type can have a positive or negative health inequality impact.

Glycemic Control, Weight Management, Cardiovascular Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Rapid Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is a high-profile glucose-lowering drug that medical decision-makers have acknowledged in recent years. This rapid review aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with semaglutide.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of randomized controlled trial (RCT)-based meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) compared to other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or placebo in patients with T2DM. Prospective cohort real-world studies (RWS) were also retrieved and subjected to MA. Four databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ISPOR, were searched from inception to 5 March 2023. The outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years and total cost.

RESULTS

We identified 33 publications: 22 RCT-based MAs, 1 SR of CEAs, and 10 RWS. Evidence showed that semaglutide at usual doses was associated with superior reductions in HbA1c and weight compared to most GLP-1 RAs in patients with T2DM who were drug naive, receiving basal insulin, or using oral hypoglycemic agents, and it was also associated with a lower number of MACE and was more cost-effective. Further, once-weekly semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (-1.1%) and body weight (-4.88 kg) in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review consolidates the positive current evidence base for prescribing semaglutide to patients with T2DM, but further rigorous studies are still urgently required to develop practice guidelines as innovative drugs become commercially available.

Pharmacoeconomic Aspects of Diabetes Mellitus: Outcomes and Analysis of Health Benefits Approach

Pharmacoeconomics is an important tool for investigating and restructuring healthcare policies. In India, recent statistical studies have shown that the number of diabetic patients is rapidly increasing in the rural, middle and upper-class settings. The aim of this review is to call attention towards the need to carry out pharmacoeconomic studies for diabetes mellitus and highlight the outcome of these studies on healthcare. A well-structured literature search from PubMed, Embase, Springer, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane was done. Studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various anti-diabetic agents for type 2 diabetes were eligible for inclusion in the analysis and review. Two independent reviewers sequentially assessed the titles, abstracts, and full articles to select studies that met the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for data abstraction. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through consensus. By employing search terms such as pharmacoeconomics, diabetes mellitus, cost-effective analysis, cost minimization analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis, a total of 194 papers were gathered. Out of these, 110 papers were selected as they aligned with the defined search criteria and underwent the removal of duplicate entries. This review outlined four basic pharmacoeconomic studies carried out on diabetes mellitus. It gave a direction that early detection, patient counseling, personalized medication, appropriate screening intervals, and early start of pharmacotherapy proved to be a cost-effective as well as health benefits approach.

Demands for Intersectoral Actions to Meet Health Challenges in East and Southern Africa and Methods for Their Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Focusing on the East, Central, and Southern African region, this study examines both regional and country-level initiatives aimed at promoting multisectoral collaboration to improve population health and the methods for their economic evaluation.

METHODS

We explored the interventions that necessitate cooperation among policymakers from diverse sectors and the mechanisms that facilitate effective collaboration and coordination across these sectors. To gain insights into the demand for multisectoral collaboration in the East, Central, and Southern African region, we presented 3 country briefs, highlighting policy areas and initiatives that have successfully incorporated health-promoting actions from outside the health sector in Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Malawi. Additionally, we showcased initiatives undertaken by the Ministry of Health in each country to foster coordination with national and international stakeholders, along with existing coordination mechanisms established for intersectoral collaboration. Drawing on these examples, we identified the primary challenges in the economic evaluation of multisectoral programs aimed at improving health in the region.

RESULTS

We illustrated how decision making in reality differs from the traditional single-sector and single-decision-maker perspective commonly used in cost-effectiveness analyses. To ensure economic evaluations can inform decision making in diverse settings and facilitate regional collaboration, we highlighted 3 fundamental principles: identifying policy objectives, defining the perspective of the analysis, and considering opportunity costs. We emphasized the importance of adopting a flexible and context-specific approach to economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this work, we contribute to bridging the gap between theory and practice in the context of intersectoral activities aimed at improving health outcomes.

The value and impact of health technology assessment: discussions and recommendations from the 2023 Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum

Health technology assessment (HTA) programs inform decision making about the value and reimbursement of new and existing health technologies; however, they are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that they are a cost-effective use of finite healthcare resources themselves. The 2023 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed the value and impact of HTA, including how it is assessed and communicated, and how it could be enhanced in the future. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2023 HTAi GPF, where the challenges and opportunities related to the value and impact of HTA were debated. Core themes and recommendations identified that defining the purpose of value and impact assessment is an essential first step prior to undertaking it, and that it can be done through the use and expansion of existing tools. Further work around aligning HTA programs with underlying societal values is needed to ensure the long-term value and impact of HTA. HTA could also have a role in assessing the efficiency of the wider health system by applying HTA methods or concepts to broader budgetary allocations and organizational aspects of health care. Stakeholders (particularly patients, industry, and clinicians but also payers, wider society, and the media) should ideally be actively engaged when undertaking the value and impact assessment of HTA. More concerted efforts in communicating the role and remit of HTA bodies would also help stakeholders to better understand the value and impact of HTA, which in turn could improve the implementation of HTA recommendations and application to future actions in the lifecycle of technologies.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Cleft Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What is Needed?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review that summarizes the cost-effectiveness of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) based on existing literature.

DESIGN

We searched eleven electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2000 to December 29, 2020. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020148402). Two reviewers independently conducted primary and secondary screening, and data extraction.

SETTING

All CL/P cost-effectiveness analyses in LMIC settings.

PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS

In total, 2883 citations were screened. Eleven articles encompassing 1,001,675 patients from 86 LMICs were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of 1% to 51% of a country's gross domestic product per capita (GDP/capita), a conservative threshold recommended for LMICs. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.

RESULTS

Primary CL/P repair was cost-effective at the threshold of 51% of a country's GDP/capita across all studies. However, only 1 study met at least 70% of the JBI criteria. There is a need for context-specific cost and health outcome data for primary CL/P repair, complications, and existing multidisciplinary management in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing economic evaluations suggest primary CL/P repair is cost-effective, however context-specific local data will make future cost-effectiveness analyses more relevant to local decision-makers and lead to better-informed resource allocation decisions in LMICs.

The Health Inequality Impact of Liquid Biopsy to Inform First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid biopsy (LB) followed by, if needed, tissue biopsy (TB) (LB-first strategy) relative to a TB-only strategy to inform first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) from a US payer perspective by which we quantify the impact of LB-first on population health inequality according to race and ethnicity.

METHODS

With a health economic model, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per patient were estimated for each subgroup. Given the lifetime risk of aNSCLC, and assuming equally distributed opportunity costs, the incremental net health benefits of LB-first were calculated, which were used to estimate general population quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth (QALE) by race and ethnicity with and without LB-first. The degree of QALYs and QALE differences with the strategies was expressed with inequality indices. Their differences were defined as the inequality impact of LB-first.

RESULTS

LB-first resulted in an additional 0.21 (95% uncertainty interval: 0.07-0.39) QALYs among treated patients, with the greatest gain observed among Asian patients (0.31 QALYs [0.09-0.61]). LB-first resulted in an increase in relative inequality in QALYs among patients, but a minor decrease in relative inequality in QALE.

CONCLUSIONS

LB-first to inform first-line aNSCLC therapy can improve health outcomes. With current diagnostic performance, the benefit is the greatest among Asian patients, thereby potentially widening racial and ethnic differences in survival among patients with aNSCLC. Assuming equally distributed opportunity costs and access, LB-first does not worsen and, in fact, may reduce inequality in general population health according to race and ethnicity.

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.

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) reporting tool: developing a checklist for policymakers

INTRODUCTION

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) is a decision support tool that shows users how a new program, policy, or innovation affects health equity in different population groups. Various HEIA reporting and dissemination tools are available, nevertheless, a practical standard tool to present the results of HEIA in an appropriate period to policymakers is lacking. This work reports the development of a tool (a checklist) for HEIA reporting at the decision-making level, aiming to promote the application of HEIA evidence for improving health equity.

METHODS

This is a mixed-method study that was carried out over four stages in 2022-2023: 1) identifying HEIA models, checklists, and reporting instruments; 2) development of the initial HEIA reporting checklist; 3) checklist validation; and 4) piloting the checklist. We also analyzed the Face, CVR, and CVI validity of the tool.

RESULTS

We developed the initial checklist through analysis of 53 included studies and the opinions of experts. The final checklist comprised five sections: policy introduction (eight subsections), managing the HEIA of policy (seven subsections), scope of the affected population (three subsections), HEIA results (seven subsections), and recommendations (three subsections).

CONCLUSION

Needs assessment, monitoring during implementation, health impact assessment, and other tools such as monitoring outcome reports, appraisals, and checklists are all methods for assessing health equity impact. Other equity-focused indicators, such as the equity lens and equity appraisal, may have slightly different goals than the HEIA. Similarly, the formats for presenting and publishing HEIA reports might vary, depending on the target population and the importance of the report.

Inequities in kidney health and kidney care

Health inequity refers to the existence of unnecessary and unfair differences in the ability of an individual or community to achieve optimal health and access appropriate care. Kidney diseases, including acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, are the epitome of health inequity. Kidney disease risk and outcomes are strongly associated with inequities that occur across the entire clinical course of disease. Insufficient investment across the spectrum of kidney health and kidney care is a fundamental source of inequity. In addition, social and structural inequities, including inequities in access to primary health care, education and preventative strategies, are major risk factors for, and contribute to, poorer outcomes for individuals living with kidney diseases. Access to affordable kidney care is also highly inequitable, resulting in financial hardship and catastrophic health expenditure for the most vulnerable. Solutions to these injustices require leadership and political will. The nephrology community has an important role in advocacy and in identifying and implementing solutions to dismantle inequities that affect kidney health.

Life expectancy can increase by up to 10 years following sustained shifts towards healthier diets in the United Kingdom

Adherence to healthy dietary patterns can prevent the development of non-communicable diseases and affect life expectancy. Here, using a prospective population-based cohort data from the UK Biobank, we show that sustained dietary change from unhealthy dietary patterns to the Eatwell Guide dietary recommendations is associated with 8.9 and 8.6 years gain in life expectancy for 40-year-old males and females, respectively. In the same population, sustained dietary change from unhealthy to longevity-associated dietary patterns is associated with 10.8 and 10.4 years gain in life expectancy in males and females, respectively. The largest gains are obtained from consuming more whole grains, nuts and fruits and less sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. Understanding the contribution of sustained dietary changes to life expectancy can provide guidance for the development of health policies.

From Race to Racism and Disparities to Equity: An Actionable Biopsychosocial Approach to Breast Cancer Outcomes

PURPOSE

Racial disparities in outcomes of breast cancer in the United States have widened over more than 3 decades, driven by complex biologic and social factors. In this review, we summarize the biological and social narratives that have shaped breast cancer disparities research across different scientific disciplines in the past, explore the underappreciated but crucial ways in which these 2 strands of the breast cancer story are interwoven, and present 5 key strategies for creating transformative interdisciplinary research to achieve equity in breast cancer treatment and outcomes.

DESIGN

We first review the key differences in tumor biology in the United States between patients racialized as Black versus White, including the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer and differences in tumor histologic and molecular features by race for hormone-sensitive disease. We then summarize key social factors at the interpersonal, institutional, and social structural levels that drive inequitable treatment. Next, we explore how biologic and social determinants are interwoven and interactive, including historical and contemporary structural factors that shape the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer among Black Americans, racial differences in tumor microenvironment, and the complex interplay of biologic and social drivers of difference in outcomes of hormone receptor positive disease, including utilization and effectiveness of endocrine therapies and the role of obesity. Finally, we present 5 principles to increase the impact and productivity of breast cancer equity research.

RESULTS

We find that social and biologic drivers of breast cancer disparities are often cyclical and are found at all levels of scientific investigation from cells to society. To break the cycle and effect change, we must acknowledge and measure the role of structural racism in breast cancer outcomes; frame biologic, psychosocial, and access factors as interwoven via mechanisms of cumulative stress, inflammation, and immune modulation; take responsibility for the impact of representativeness (or the lack thereof) in genomic and decision modeling on the ability to accurately predict the outcomes of Black patients; create research that incorporates the perspectives of people of color from inception to implementation; and rigorously evaluate innovations in equitable cancer care delivery and health policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative, cross-disciplinary research across the biologic and social sciences is crucial to understanding and eliminating disparities in breast cancer outcomes.

Economic evaluation of self-help group interventions for health in LMICs: a scoping review

This scoping review aims to identify and critically appraise published economic evaluations of self-help group (SHG) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to improve health and potentially also non-health outcomes. Through a systematic search of MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO, EconLit (Ovid) and Global Index Medicus, we identified studies published between 2014 and 2020 that were based in LMICs, included at least a health outcome, estimated intervention costs and reported the methods used. We critically analysed whether the methods employed can meaningfully inform decisions by ministries of health and other sectors, including donors, regarding whether to fund such interventions, and prioritized the aspects of evaluations that support decision-making and cross-sectoral decision-making especially. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials were the most commonly used vehicle to collect data and to establish a causal effect across studies. While all studies clearly stated one or more perspectives justifying the costs and effects that are reported, few papers clearly laid out the decision context or the decision maker(s) informed by the study. The latter is required to inform which costs, effects and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision and should be included in the analysis. Costs were typically reported from the provider or health-care sector perspective although other perspectives were also employed. Four papers reported outcomes in terms of a generic measure of health. Contrary to expectation, no studies reported outcomes beyond health. Our findings suggest limitations in the extent to which published studies are able to inform decision makers around the value of implementing SHG interventions in their particular context. Funders can make better informed decisions when evidence is presented using a cross-sectoral framework.

Recognizing the Broader Value of Meningococcal Vaccination: A Matter of Evidence, Ability, or Willingness?

OBJECTIVES

It is widely argued that the value of meningococcal vaccination extends beyond the narrow value elements traditionally considered in health technology assessment. Nevertheless, measuring broader value presents challenges, whereas assessment methods and outcomes vary widely. This article investigates the extent to which the broader value of meningococcal vaccination is recognized, considering the available evidence and decision maker's methodological ability and willingness.

METHODS

A targeted literature review informed the classification of broader value elements according to their relevance to meningococcal vaccination and the quality of existing evidence. Focusing on relevant value elements with good evidentiary standards, decision makers' perspectives and methodological ability to consider them were assessed through case studies of health technology assessment of meningococcal B vaccination in England and The Netherlands.

RESULTS

Value elements of high relevance to meningococcal vaccination with good quality evidence include caregivers' health gains, patients' lifetime productivity gains, and disease severity. The willingness and methodological ability to incorporate them into value assessments have been mixed. This is attributable to the scope of the value assessment perspective and the use of evaluation methods that do not fully capture broader value. For other broader value elements, evidence gaps are another potential barrier to value demonstration and recognition.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base confirms that the value of meningococcal vaccination spans beyond healthcare sector effects to health-related externalities, allocative value, and societal economic benefits. To ensure that the most efficient resource allocation outcomes are achieved, countries should consider how to improve their perspective and methodological ability to assess broader value elements accurately.

What makes a health system good? From cost-effectiveness analysis to ethical improvement in health systems

Fair allocation of scarce healthcare resources has been much studied within philosophy and bioethics, but analysis has focused on a narrow range of cases. The Covid-19 pandemic provided significant new challenges, making powerfully visible the extent to which health systems can be fragile, and how scarcities within crucial elements of interlinked care pathways can lead to cascading failures. Health system resilience, while previously a key topic in global health, can now be seen to be a vital concern in high-income countries too. Unfortunately, mainstream philosophical approaches to the ethics of rationing and prioritisation provide little guidance for these new problems of scarcity. Indeed, the cascading failures were arguably exacerbated by earlier attempts to make health systems leaner and more efficient. This paper argues that health systems should move from simple and atomistic approaches to measuring effectiveness to approaches that are holistic both in focusing on performance at the level of the health system as a whole, and also in incorporating a wider range of ethical concerns in thinking about what makes a health system good.

Retrospective analysis of equity-based optimization for COVID-19 vaccine allocation

Marginalized racial and ethnic groups in the United States were disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. To study these disparities, we construct an age-and-race-stratified mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission fitted to age-and-race-stratified data from 2020 in Oregon and analyze counterfactual vaccination strategies in early 2021. We consider two racial groups: non-Hispanic White persons and persons belonging to BIPOC groups (including non-Hispanic Black persons, non-Hispanic Asian persons, non-Hispanic American-Indian or Alaska-Native persons, and Hispanic or Latino persons). We allocate a limited amount of vaccine to minimize overall disease burden (deaths or years of life lost), inequity in disease outcomes between racial groups (measured with five different metrics), or both. We find that, when allocating small amounts of vaccine (10% coverage), there is a trade-off between minimizing disease burden and minimizing inequity. Older age groups, who are at a greater risk of severe disease and death, are prioritized when minimizing measures of disease burden, and younger BIPOC groups, who face the most inequities, are prioritized when minimizing measures of inequity. The allocation strategies that minimize combinations of measures can produce middle-ground solutions that similarly improve both disease burden and inequity, but the trade-off can only be mitigated by increasing the vaccine supply. With enough resources to vaccinate 20% of the population the trade-off lessens, and with 30% coverage, we can optimize both equity and mortality. Our goal is to provide a race-conscious framework to quantify and minimize inequity that can be used for future pandemics and other public health interventions.

Health equity: A concept analysis

BACKGROUND

Although health equity is critically important for healthcare delivery, there are inconsistencies in its definitions or lack of definitions.

PURPOSE

Develop a comprehensive understanding of health equity to guide nursing practice and healthcare policy.

METHOD

Walker and Avant's concept analysis method was used to establish defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of health equity.

FINDINGS

Health equity defining attributes are grounded in ethical principles, the absence of unfair and avoidable differences, and fair and just opportunities to attain a person's full health potential. Health equity antecedents are categorized into environmental; financial or economic; law, politics, and policy; societal and structural; research; and digital and technology.

DISCUSSION

Health equity's antecedents are useful to distinguish health disparities from health outcomes resulting from individual preferences. To achieve health equity, organizations need to focus on addressing the antecedents.

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of community-based distribution of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo

INTRODUCTION

Malaria in pregnancy is a major driver of maternal and infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. The WHO recommends the administration of intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) at antenatal care (ANC) visits. Despite being a highly cost-effective strategy, IPTp-SP coverage and uptake remains low. A pilot project was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of community-based delivery of IPTp (C-IPTp) in addition to ANC delivery to increase IPTp uptake in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Madagascar (MDG), Mozambique (MOZ) and Nigeria (NGA).

METHODS

Costs and CE estimates of C-IPTp were calculated according to two scenarios: (1) costs in 'programmatic mode' (ie, costs if C-IPTp was to be implemented by national health systems) and (2) costs from the pilot project. The effectiveness of C-IPTp was obtained through estimates of the averted disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with maternal clinical malaria and anaemia, low birth weight and neonatal mortality.

RESULTS

Net incremental costs of C-IPTp ranged between US$6138-US$47 177 (DRC), US$5552-US$31 552 (MDG), US$10 202-US$53 221 (MOZ) and US$667-US$28 645 (NGA) per 1000 pregnant women, under scenarios (1) and (2), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged between US$15-US$119 in DRC, US$9-US$53 in MDG, US$104-US$543 in MOZ and US$2-US$66 in NGA per DALY averted, under scenarios (1) and (2), respectively. ICERs fall below the WHO recommended CE threshold based on the gross domestic product per capita.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that C-IPTp is a highly cost-effective intervention. Results can inform policy decisions on adopting and optimising effective interventions for preventing malaria in pregnancy.

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.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness of Equity-Enhancing Gene Therapy in Sickle Cell Disease in the United States

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy is a potential cure for sickle cell disease (SCD). Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not capture the effects of treatments on disparities in SCD, but distributional CEA (DCEA) uses equity weights to incorporate these considerations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare gene therapy versus standard of care (SOC) in patients with SCD by using conventional CEA and DCEA.

DESIGN

Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Claims data and other published sources.

TARGET POPULATION

Birth cohort of patients with SCD.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

U.S. health system.

INTERVENTION

Gene therapy at age 12 years versus SOC.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained) and threshold inequality aversion parameter (equity weight).

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Gene therapy versus SOC for females yielded 25.5 versus 15.7 (males: 24.4 vs. 15.5) discounted lifetime QALYs at costs of $2.8 million and $1.0 million (males: $2.8 million and $1.2 million), respectively, with an ICER of $176 000 per QALY (full SCD population). The inequality aversion parameter would need to be 0.90 for the full SCD population for gene therapy to be preferred per DCEA standards.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

SOC was favored in 100.0% (females) and 87.1% (males) of 10 000 probabilistic iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Gene therapy would need to cost less than $1.79 million to meet conventional CEA standards.

LIMITATION

Benchmark equity weights (as opposed to SCD-specific weights) were used to interpret DCEA results.

CONCLUSION

Gene therapy is cost-ineffective per conventional CEA standards but can be an equitable therapeutic strategy for persons living with SCD in the United States per DCEA standards.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholars Program and Bunker Endowment.

Developing Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation Tool

OBJECTIVES

Because existing publication guidelines and checklists have limitations when used to assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analysis, we developed a novel quality assessment tool for cost-effectiveness analyses, differentiating methods and reporting quality and incorporating the relative importance of different quality attributes.

METHODS

We defined 15 quality domains from a scoping review and identified 72 methods and reporting quality attributes (36 each). After designing a best-worst scaling survey, we fielded an online survey to researchers and practitioners to estimate the relative importance of the attributes in February 2021. We analyzed the survey data using a sequential conditional logit model. The final tool included 48 quality attributes deemed most important for assessing methods and reporting quality (24 each), accompanied by a free and web-based scoring system.

RESULTS

A total of 524 participants completed the methodology section, and 372 completed both methodology and reporting sections. Quality attributes pertaining to the "modeling" and "data inputs and evidence synthesis" domains were deemed most important for methods quality, including "structure of the model reflects the underlying condition and intervention's impact" and "model validation is conducted." Quality attributes pertaining to "modeling" and "Intervention/comparator(s)" domains were considered most important for reporting quality, including "model descriptions are detailed enough for replication." Despite its growing prominence, "equity considerations" were not deemed as important as other quality attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation tool allows users to differentiate methods and reporting as well as quantifies the relative importance of quality attributes. Alongside other considerations, it could help assess and improve the quality of cost-effectiveness evidence to inform value-based decisions.

Equity in Economic Evaluations of Early Childhood Development Interventions in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to examine how equity is integrated into economic evaluations of early childhood development interventions in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to narratively synthesize the study characteristics and findings.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching three electronic databases with terms including equity, early childhood development intervention, economic evaluation, and LMICs. Interventions that aimed to improve child cognitive, physical, language, motor, or social and emotional development through health, nutrition, security and safety, responsive caregiving, and early learning interventions between conception and age 8 years were considered. Studies published in English peer-reviewed journals in the year 2000 and later were included.

RESULTS

The review included 24 cost-effectiveness studies out of 1460 identified articles based on eligibility criteria. The included studies addressed health, nutrition, social protection, and water, sanitation and hygiene interventions for child development. The common type of intervention was immunization. Mostly, equity was measured using household wealth or geographic areas, and the study findings were presented through subgroup analyses. The study settings were LMICs, but most studies were conducted by research teams from high-income countries. Overall, 63% of included studies reported that early childhood development interventions improved equity with greater intervention benefits observed in disadvantaged groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of equity in evaluations of early childhood interventions provides a more complete picture of cost-effectiveness, and can improve equity. Greater focus on promoting equity consideration, multi-sectoral interventions, and researchers in LMICs would support evidence-based interventions and policies to achieve equity in child development.

When should global health actors prioritise more uncertain interventions?

Global health actors use economic evaluations, including cost-effectiveness analyses, to estimate the effect of different interventions they might fund. However, producing reliable cost-effectiveness estimates is difficult, meaning organisations must often choose between funding interventions for which reliable predictions of efficacy exist and those for which they do not. In practice, many organisations appear to be risk-averse, favouring more certain interventions simply because they are more certain. We argue that this practice is not justifiable. Prioritising projects backed by greater evidence might often produce greater health benefits. However, a general tendency to prefer more certain interventions will cause global health actors to overlook opportunities to help less well-studied populations, support promising but complex interventions, address the upstream causes of illness, and conduct the most important impact evaluations. We argue that global health actors should instead adopt nuanced attitudes towards uncertainty and be willing to fund highly uncertain interventions in some cases. We further describe the considerations they should take into account in rendering these judgements.

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.

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.

[Cost-effectiveness of treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in México]

Background

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM2) is a public health and socioeconomic problem, generating direct medical costs for its treatment.

Objective

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of monotherapy and bitherapy treatments in patients with DM2.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness, observational, ambispective, cross-sectional and analytical analysis of files in a first level medical unit. The data in the cost matrix was executed with the Office Excel 2010 program; the most prescribed drug was identified and compared with monotherapy and bitherapy.

Results

The annual direct medical costs of the total population were drug cost $118,561.70MN, hospitalization cost $243,756.00MN, consultation cost $327,414.00MN and clinical trial cost $2416.79MN, obtaining an annual total of $692,148.58MN. metformin was the most indicated in monotherapy (88.4%) and as standard therapy it has higher cost-effectiveness compared to glibenclamide. In bitherapy it was metformin/glibenclamide (35.7%) versus the therapeutics of metformin/NPH insulin, metformin/insulin glargine and metformin/dapagliflozin, which had a better cost-effective result, with an incremental cost effectiveness of -$1,128,428.50MN, -$34,365.00 MN, -$119,848.97MN respectively.

Conclusions

Metformin presented a better cost-effectiveness ratio in monotherapy, while in bitherapy it was the metformin/NPH insulin association.

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.