Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comes of Age

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.

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.

Is Economic Evaluation and Care Commissioning Focused on Achieving the Same Outcomes? Resource-Allocation Considerations and Challenges Using England as a Case Study

Commissioning describes the process of contracting appropriate care services to address pre-identified needs through pre-agreed payment structures. Outcomes-based commissioning (i.e., paying services for pre-agreed outcomes) shares a common goal with economic evaluation: achieving value for money for relevant outcomes (e.g., health) achieved from a finite budget. We describe considerations and challenges as to the practical role of relevant outcomes for evaluation and commissioning, seeking to bridge a gap between economic evaluation evidence and care commissioning. We describe conceptual (e.g., what are 'relevant' outcomes) alongside practical considerations (e.g., quantifying and using relevant endpoint or surrogate outcomes) and pertinent issues when linking outcomes to commissioning-based payment mechanisms, using England as a case study. Economic evaluation often focuses on a single endpoint health-focused maximand, e.g., quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), whereas commissioning often focuses on activity-based surrogate outcomes (e.g., health monitoring), as easier-to-measure key performance indicators that are more acceptable (e.g., by clinicians) and amenable to being linked with payment structures. However, payments linked to endpoint and/or surrogate outcomes can lead to market inefficiencies; for example, when surrogates do not have the intended causal effect on endpoint outcomes or when service activity focuses on only people who can achieve prespecified payment-linked outcomes. Accounting for and explaining direct links from commissioners' payment structures to surrogate and then endpoint economic outcomes is a vital step to bridging a gap between economic evaluation approaches and commissioning. Decision-analytic models could aid this but they must be designed to account for relevant surrogate and endpoint outcomes, the payments assigned to such outcomes, and their interaction with the system commissioners purport to influence.

Validation of a Multivariable Model to Predict Suicide Attempt in a Mental Health Intake Sample

Importance

Given that suicide rates have been increasing over the past decade and the demand for mental health care is at an all-time high, targeted prevention efforts are needed to identify individuals seeking to initiate mental health outpatient services who are at high risk for suicide. Suicide prediction models have been developed using outpatient mental health encounters, but their performance among intake appointments has not been directly examined.

Objective

To assess the performance of a predictive model of suicide attempts among individuals seeking to initiate an episode of outpatient mental health care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study tested the performance of a previously developed machine learning model designed to predict suicide attempts within 90 days of any mental health outpatient visit. All mental health intake appointments scheduled between January 1, 2012, and April 1, 2022, at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system serving over 4.5 million patients, were included. Data were extracted and analyzed from August 9, 2022, to July 31, 2023.

Main Outcome and Measures

Suicide attempts (including completed suicides) within 90 days of the appointment, determined by diagnostic codes and government databases. All predictors were extracted from electronic health records.

Results

The study included 1 623 232 scheduled appointments from 835 616 unique patients. There were 2800 scheduled appointments (0.17%) followed by a suicide attempt within 90 days. The mean (SD) age across appointments was 39.7 (15.8) years, and most appointments were for women (1 103 184 [68.0%]). The model had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.76-0.78), an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.02-0.02), an expected calibration error of 0.0012 (95% CI, 0.0011-0.0013), and sensitivities of 37.2% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.9%) and 18.8% (95% CI, 17.3%-20.2%) at specificities of 95% and 99%, respectively. The 10% of appointments at the highest risk level accounted for 48.8% (95% CI, 47.0%-50.6%) of the appointments followed by a suicide attempt.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study involving mental health intakes, a previously developed machine learning model of suicide attempts showed good overall classification performance. Implementation research is needed to determine appropriate thresholds and interventions for applying the model in an intake setting to target high-risk cases in a manner that is acceptable to patients and clinicians.

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.

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally: Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: inequities in diagnostic yield

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of colorectal cancer screening are well documented, but the implications on inequities in health gain remain unclear.

METHODS

Sixty-year-olds were randomly recruited from the Swedish population between March 2014 and March 2020 and invited to undergo either 2 rounds of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) 2 years apart (n = 60 137) or primary colonoscopy just once (n = 30 400). By linkage to Statistics Sweden's registries, we obtained socioeconomic data. In each defined socioeconomic group, we estimated the cumulative yield of advanced neoplasia in each screening arm (intention-to-screen analysis). In the biennial FIT arm, we predicted the probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm by linear extrapolation of the cumulative yield to (hypothetical) additional rounds of FIT.

RESULTS

In the lowest income group, the yield of advanced neoplasia was 1.63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35% to 1.93%) after 2 rounds of FIT vs 1.93% (95% CI = 1.49% to 2.40%) in the primary colonoscopy arm. Extrapolation to a third round of FIT implied a 86% probability of exceeding the yield in the primary colonoscopy arm. In the highest income group, we found a more pronounced yield gap between the 2 screening strategies-2.32% (95% CI = 2.15% to 2.49%) vs 3.71% (95% CI = 3.41% to 4.02%)- implying a low (2%) predicted probability of exceeding yield after a third round of FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Yield of advanced neoplasia from 2 rounds of FIT 2 years apart was poorer as compared with primary colonoscopy, but the difference was less in lower socioeconomic groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02078804.

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.

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.

Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case.

Methods

Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations.

Findings

The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility.

Interpretation

The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.

Evaluating the Value for Money of Precision Medicine from Early Cycle to Market Access: A Comprehensive Review of Approaches and Challenges

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a comprehensive review of modeling approaches and methodological and policy challenges in the economic evaluation (EE) of precision medicine (PM) across clinical stages.

METHODS

First, a systematic review was performed to assess the approaches of EEs in the past 10 years. Next, a targeted review of methodological articles was conducted for methodological and policy challenges in performing EEs of PM. All findings were synthesized into a structured framework that focused on patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability and Modeling aspects, named the "PICOTEAM" framework. Finally, a stakeholder consultation was conducted to understand the major determinants of decision making in PM investment.

RESULTS

In 39 methodological articles, we identified major challenges to the EE of PM. These challenges include that PM applications involve complex and evolving clinical decision space, that clinical evidence is sparse because of small subgroups and complex pathways in PM settings, a one-time PM application may have lifetime or intergenerational impacts but long-term evidence is often unavailable, and that equity and ethics concerns are exceptional. In 275 EEs of PM, current approaches did not sufficiently capture the value of PM compared with targeted therapies, nor did they differentiate Early EEs from Conventional EEs. Finally, policy makers perceived the budget impact, cost savings, and cost-effectiveness of PM as the most important determinants in decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to modify existing guidelines or develop a new reference case that fits into the new healthcare paradigm of PM to guide decision making in research and development and market access.

Rare Disease, Advocacy and Justice: Intersecting Disparities in Research and Clinical Care

Rare genetic diseases collectively impact millions of individuals in the United States. These patients and their families share many challenges including delayed diagnosis, lack of knowledgeable providers, and limited economic incentives to develop new therapies for small patient groups. As such, rare disease patients and families often must rely on advocacy, including both self-advocacy to access clinical care and public advocacy to advance research. However, these demands raise serious concerns for equity, as both care and research for a given disease can depend on the education, financial resources, and social capital available to the patients in a given community. In this article, we utilize three case examples to illustrate ethical challenges at the intersection of rare diseases, advocacy and justice, including how reliance on advocacy in rare disease may drive unintended consequences for equity. We conclude with a discussion of opportunities for diverse stakeholders to begin to address these challenges.

A Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations to Inform the Reorientation of Preventive Health Services in Australia

The Australian National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030 recommended the establishment of evidence-based frameworks to enable local public health services to identify strategies and interventions that deliver value for money. This study aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of preventive health strategies to inform the reorientation of local public health services towards preventive health interventions that are financially sustainable. Four electronic databases were searched for reviews published between 2005 and February 2022. Reviews that met the following criteria were included: population: human studies, any age or sex; concept 1: primary and/or secondary prevention interventions; concept 2: full economic evaluation; context: local public health services as the provider of concept 1. The search identified 472 articles; 26 were included. Focus health areas included mental health (n = 3 reviews), obesity (n = 1), type 2 diabetes (n = 3), dental caries (n = 2), public health (n = 4), chronic disease (n = 5), sexual health (n = 1), immunisation (n = 1), smoking cessation (n = 3), reducing alcohol (n = 1), and fractures (n = 2). Interventions that targeted obesity, type 2 diabetes, smoking cessation, and fractures were deemed cost-effective, however, more studies are needed, especially those that consider equity in priority populations.

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.

Modelled Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Childhood Obesity Interventions: A Demonstration

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate how distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood obesity interventions could be conducted and presented for decision makers.

METHODS

We conducted modelled distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of three obesity interventions in children: an infant sleep intervention (POI-Sleep), a combined infant sleep, food, activity and breastfeeding intervention (POI-Combo) and a clinician-led treatment for primary school-aged children with overweight and obesity (High Five for Kids). For each intervention, costs and socioeconomic position (SEP)-specific effect sizes were applied to an Australian child cohort (n = 4898). Using a purpose-built microsimulation model we simulated SEP-specific body mass index (BMI) trajectories, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from age 4 to 17 years for control and intervention cohorts. We examined the distribution of each health outcome across SEP and determined the net health benefit and equity impact accounting for opportunity costs and uncertainty due to individual-level heterogeneity. Finally, we conducted scenario analyses to test the effect of assumptions about health system marginal productivity, the distribution of opportunity costs and SEP-specific effect sizes. The results of the primary analyses, uncertainty analyses and scenario analyses were presented on an efficiency-equity impact plane.

RESULTS

Accounting for uncertainty, POI-Sleep and High Five for Kids were found to be 'win-win' interventions, with a 67% and 100% probability, respectively, of generating a net health benefit and positive equity impact compared with control. POI-Combo was found to be a 'lose-lose' intervention, with a 91% probability of producing a net health loss and a negative equity impact compared with control. Scenario analyses indicated that SEP-specific effect sizes were highly influential on equity impact estimates for POI-Combo and High Five for Kids, while health system marginal productivity and opportunity cost distribution assumptions primarily influenced the net health benefit and equity impact of POI-Combo.

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses demonstrated that distributional cost-effectiveness analyses using a fit-for-purpose model are appropriate for differentiating and communicating the efficiency and equity impacts of childhood obesity interventions.

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.

A review of economic issues for gene-targeted therapies: Value, affordability, and access

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' virtual 2021 conference on gene-targeted therapies (GTTs) encouraged multidisciplinary dialogue on a wide range of GTT topic areas. Each of three parallel working groups included social scientists and clinical scientists, and the three major sessions included a presentation on economic issues related to their focus area. These experts also coordinated their efforts across the three groups. The economics-related presentations covered three areas with some overlap: (1) value assessment, uncertainty, and dynamic efficiency; (2) affordability, pricing, and financing; and (3) evidence generation, coverage, and access. This article provides a synopsis of three presentations, some of their key recommendations, and an update on related developments in the past year. The key high-level findings are that GTTs present unique data and policy challenges, and that existing regulatory, health technology assessment, as well as payment and financing systems will need to adapt. But these adjustments can build on our existing foundation of regulatory and incentive systems for innovation, and much can be done to accelerate progress in GTTs. Given the substantial unmet medical need that exists for these oft-neglected patients suffering from rare diseases, it would be a tragedy to not leverage these exciting scientific advances in GTTs.

Is the cost-effectiveness of an early-childhood sleep intervention to prevent obesity affected by socioeconomic position?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether the cost-effectiveness of an infant sleep intervention from the Prevention of Overweight in Infancy (POI) trial was influenced by socioeconomic position (SEP).

METHODS

An SEP-specific economic evaluation of the sleep intervention was conducted. SEP-specific intervention costs and effects at age 5 years, derived from the trial data, were applied to a representative cohort of 4,898 4- to 5-year-old Australian children. Quality-adjusted life years and health care costs were simulated until age 17 years using a purpose-built SEP-specific model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves were derived for each SEP group.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, in Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained, were smaller in the low- ($23,010) and mid-SEP ($18,206) groups compared with the high-SEP group ($31,981). The probability that the intervention was cost-effective was very high in the low- and mid-SEP groups (92%-100%) and moderately high in the high-SEP group (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

An infant sleep intervention is more cost-effective in low- and mid-SEP groups compared with high-SEP groups. Targeting this intervention to low-SEP groups would not require trade-offs between efficiency and 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.

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Interventions: Considerations of Non-Health Impacts and Distributional Issues

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of COVID-19 interventions and to examine whether and how these studies incorporate non-health impacts and distributional concerns.

METHODS

We searched the National Institutes of Health's COVID-19 Portfolio as of May 20, 2021, and supplemented our search with additional sources. We included original articles, including preprints, evaluating both the health and economic effects of a COVID-19-related intervention. Using a pre-specified data collection form, 2 reviewers independently screened, reviewed, and extracted information about the study characteristics, intervention types, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We used an Impact Inventory to catalog the types of non-health impacts considered.

RESULTS

We included 70 articles, almost half of which were preprints. Most articles (56%) included at least one non-health impact, but fewer (21%) incorporated non-economic consequences. Few articles (17%) examined subgroups of interest. After excluding negative ICERs, the median ICER for the entire sample (n = 243 ratios) was $67,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (interquartile range [IQR] $9000-$893,000/QALY). Interventions including a pharmaceutical component yielded a median ICER of $93,000/QALY (IQR $4000-$7,809,000/QALY), whereas interventions including a non-pharmaceutical component were slightly more cost-effective overall with a median ICER of $81,000/QALY (IQR $12,000-$1,034,000/QALY). Interventions reported to be highly cost-effective were treatment, public information campaigns, quarantining identified contacts/cases, canceling public events, and social distancing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights the lack of consideration of non-health and distributional impacts among COVID-19-related economic evaluations. Accounting for non-health impacts and distributional effects is essential for comprehensive assessment of interventions' value and imperative for generating cost-effectiveness evidence for both current and future pandemics.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing or primary colonoscopy: An analysis of health equity based on a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

We have addressed health equity attained by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and primary colonoscopy (PCOL), respectively, in the randomised controlled screening trial SCREESCO conducted in Sweden.

METHODS

We analysed data on the individuals recruited between March 2014, and March 2020, within the study registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02078804. Swedish population registry data on educational level, household income, country of birth, and marital status were linked to each 60-year-old man and woman who had been randomised to two rounds of FIT 2 years apart (n = 60,123) or once-only PCOL (n = 30,390). Furthermore, we geo-coded each study individual to his/her residential area and assessed neighbourhood-level data on deprivation, proportion of non-Western immigrants, population density, and average distance to healthcare center for colonoscopy. We estimated adjusted associations of each covariate with the colonoscopy attendance proportion out of all invited to respective arms; ie, the preferred outcome for addressing health equity. In the FIT arm, the test uptake and the colonoscopy uptake among the test positives were considered as the secondary outcomes.

FINDINGS

We found a marked socioeconomic gradient in the colonoscopy attendance proportion in the PCOL arm (adjusted odds ratio [95% credibility interval] between the groups categorised in the highest vs. lowest national quartile for household income: 2·20 [2·01-2·42]) in parallel with the gradient in the test uptake of the FIT × 2 screening (2·08 [1·96-2·20]). The corresponding gradient in the colonoscopy attendance proportion out of all invited to FIT was less pronounced (1·29 [1·16-1·42]), due to higher proportions of FIT positives in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

INTERPRETATION

The unintended risk of exacerbating inequalities in health by organised colorectal cancer screening may be higher with a PCOL strategy than a FIT strategy, despite parallel socioeconomic gradients in uptake.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Swedish Cancer Society under Grant 20 0719. CB and US provided economic support from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life, and Welfare under Grant 2020-00962.

Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status has an important effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD). Data on the economic implications of CVD by socioeconomic status are needed to inform healthcare planning.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to project new-onset CVD and related health economic outcomes in Australia by socioeconomic status from 2021 to 2030.

METHODS

A dynamic population model was built to project annual new-onset CVD by socioeconomic quintile in Australians aged 40-79 years from 2021 to 2030. Cardiovascular risk was estimated using the Pooled Cohort Equation (PCE) from Australian-specific data, stratified for each socioeconomic quintile. The model projected years of life lived, quality- adjusted life-years (QALYs), acute healthcare medical costs, and productivity losses due to new-onset CVD. All outcomes were discounted by 5% annually.

RESULTS

PCE estimates showed that 8.4% of people in the most disadvantaged quintile were at high risk of CVD, compared with 3.7% in the least disadvantaged quintile (p < 0.001). From 2021 to 2030, the model projected 32% more cardiovascular events in the most disadvantaged quintile compared with the least disadvantaged (127,070 in SE 1 vs. 96,222 in SE 5). Acute healthcare costs in the most disadvantaged quintile were Australian dollars (AU$) 183 million higher than the least disadvantaged, and the difference in productivity costs was AU$959 million. Removing the equity gap (by applying the cardiovascular risk from the least disadvantaged quintile to the whole population) would prevent 114,822 cardiovascular events and save AU$704 million of healthcare costs and AU$3844 million of lost earnings over the next 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the pressing need to implement primary prevention interventions to reduce cardiovascular health inequity. This model provides a platform to incorporate socioeconomic status into health economic models by estimating which interventions are likely to yield more benefits in each socioeconomic quintile.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Estimating and Comparing Health and Financial Risk Protection Outcomes in Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Improving health and financial risk protection (FRP, the prevention of medical impoverishment) and their distributions is a major objective of national health systems. Explicitly describing FRP and disaggregated (eg, across socioeconomic groups) impact of health interventions in economic evaluations can provide decision makers with a broader set of health and financial outcomes to compare and prioritize interventions against each other.

METHODS

We propose methods to synthesize such a broader set of outcomes by estimating and comparing the distributions in both health and FRP benefits procured by health interventions. We build on benefit-cost analysis frameworks and utility-based models, and we illustrate our methods with the case study of universal public finance (financing by government regardless of whom an intervention is targeting) of disease treatment in a low- and middle-income country setting.

RESULTS

Two key findings seem to emerge: FRP is critical when diseases are less lethal (eg, case fatality rates <1% or so), and quantitative valuation of inequality aversion across income groups matters greatly. We recommend the use of numerous sensitivity analyses and that all distributional health and financial outcomes be first presented in a disaggregated form (before potential subsequent aggregation).

CONCLUSIONS

Estimation approaches such as the one we propose provide explicit disaggregated considerations of equity, FRP, and poverty impact for the development of health sector policies, with high relevance for population-based preventive measures.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Health equity impact of community-initiated kangaroo mother care: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Kangaroo mother care (KMC) can substantially enhance overall survival of low birthweight babies. In a large randomized controlled trial, we recently showed that supporting mothers to provide community initiated KMC (ciKMC) can reduce mortality among infants up to 180 days of life by 25% (hazard ratio (HR) 0.75). With the current analysis, we aimed to explore if ciKMC promotion leads to increased inequity in survival.

METHODS

In the trial we randomized 8402 low birthweight babies to a ciKMC (4480 babies) and a control (3922 babies) arm, between 2015 and 2018 in Haryana, India. We estimated the difference in concentration indices, which measure inequality, between babies in the ciKMC and control arms for survival until 180 days of life. Further, we compared the effect of ciKMC promotion across subgroups defined by socioeconomic status, caste, maternal literacy, infant's sex, and religion.

RESULTS

Our intervention did not increase survival inequity, as the concentration index in the ciKMC arm of the trial was 0.05 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.17) lower than in the control arm. Survival impact was higher among those belonging to the lower two wealth quintiles, those born to illiterate mothers and those belonging to religions other than Hindu.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ciKMC promotion did not increase inequity in survival associated with wealth. The beneficial impact of ciKMC tended to be larger among vulnerable groups. Supporting mothers to provide KMC at home to low birthweight babies will not increase and could indeed reduce inequities in infant survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02653534 . Registered January 12, 2016-Retrospectively registered.

The inverse care law re-examined: a global perspective

An inverse care law persists in almost all low-income and middle-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive less, and lower-quality, health care despite having greater need. By contrast, a disproportionate care law persists in high-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive more health care, but of worse quality and insufficient quantity to meet their additional needs. Both laws are caused not only by financial barriers and fragmented health insurance systems but also by social inequalities in care seeking and co-investment as well as the costs and benefits of health care. Investing in more integrated universal health coverage and stronger primary care, delivered in proportion to need, can improve population health and reduce health inequality. However, trade-offs sometimes exist between health policy objectives. Health-care technologies, policies, and resourcing should be subjected to distributional analysis of their equity impacts, to ensure the objective of reducing health inequalities is kept in sight.