Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review

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

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

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Equity 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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness and the Avoidance of Discrimination in Healthcare: Can We Have Both?

Many ethical theorists believe that a given distribution of healthcare is morally justified only if (1) it is cost-effective and (2) it does not discriminate against older adults and disabled people. However, if (3) cost-effectiveness involves maximizing the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) added by a given unit of healthcare resource, or cost, it seems the pursuit of cost-effectiveness will inevitably discriminate against older adults and disabled patients. I show why this trilemma is harder to escape than some theorists think. We cannot avoid it by using age- or disability-weighted QALY scores, for example. I then explain why there is no sense of "discrimination" on which discrimination is both unjust, and thus something healthcare rationing must avoid, and something cost-effective healthcare rationing inevitably involves. I go on to argue that many of the reasons we have for not favoring rationing that maximizes QALYs outside the healthcare context apply in healthcare as well. Thus, claim (1) above is dubious.

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.

Exploration of the Reasons Why Health State Valuation Differs for Children Compared With Adults: A Mixed Methods Approach

OBJECTIVES

Evidence comparing utilities for adults and children consistently report higher utility values for child health states. This study investigates the reasons why child health states are valued differently.

METHODS

A total of 80 respondents (United Kingdom, Belgium, The Netherlands) participated in 1.5-hour face-to-face interviews. Respondents valued 4 health states from 2 perspectives (8-year-old child, 40-year-old adult) using visual analog scale and time trade-off. A total of 32 respondents participated in think-aloud interviews. Audio recordings were analyzed by 2 independent coders using NVIVO software. Statements, nodes, and themes were reviewed cyclically until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

Qualitative results: a total of 5 themes were identified in the data regarding child and adult valuation-intergenerational responsibility and dependency (childhood is crucial for forming life skills based on new experiences; adulthood is an important time to take care of the family), staying alive is important (life is worth living even with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), for children and adults), awareness of poor HRQoL and ability to make decisions (children have difficulties comprehending poor HRQoL and their parents make their healthcare decision; adults can assess their own HRQoL and decide for themselves), coping ability (children are flexible and resilient; adults have experience with dealing with difficulties), and practical organization of care (children are cared for by their parents; adults are able to organize and pay for care). Mixed methods: comparing qualitative statements with respondents' higher utilities for child health states confirmed concordance between results.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality-adjusted life-years are interpreted differently for children and adults. Child-specific value sets are needed to reflect society's preferences and to adequately conduct health technology assessment of pediatric treatments.

Conceptualising equity in the impact evaluation of chronic disease management programmes: a capabilities approach

Chronic diseases are highly important for the future level and distribution of health and well-being in western societies. Consequently, it seems pertinent to assess not only efficiency of chronic care but also its impact on health equity. However, operationalisation of health equity has proven a challenging task. Challenges include identifying a relevant and measurable evaluative space. Various schools of thought in health economics have identified different outcomes of interest for equity assessment, with capabilities as a proposed alternative to more conventional economic conceptualisations. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the conceptualisation of health equity evaluation in the context of chronic disease management. We do this by firstly introducing an equity enquiry framework incorporating the capabilities approach. Secondly, we demonstrate the application and relevance of this framework through a content analysis of equity-related principles and aims in national chronic disease management guidelines and the national diabetes action plan in Denmark. Finally, we discuss how conceptualisations of equity focused on capabilities may be used in evaluation by scoping relevant operationalisations. A promising way forward in the context of chronic care evaluation may emerge from a combination of concepts of capabilities developed in economics, health sciences and psychology.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Equity and economic evaluation of system-level health interventions: A case study of Brazil's Family Health Program

Distributional economic evaluation estimates the value for money of health interventions in terms of population health and health equity impacts. When applied to interventions delivered at the population and health system-level interventions (PSIs) instead of clinical interventions, additional practical and methodological challenges arise. Using the example of the Programme Saúde da Familia (PSF) in Brazil, a community-level primary care system intervention, we seek to illustrate these challenges and provide potential solutions. We use a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) approach to evaluate the impact of the PSF on population health and between-state health inequalities in Brazil. Data on baseline health status, disease prevalence and PSF effectiveness are extracted from the literature and incorporated into a Markov model to estimate the long-term impacts in terms of disability-adjusted life years. The inequality and average health impacts are analysed simultaneously using health-related social welfare functions. Uncertainty is computed using Monte Carlo simulation. The DCEA encountered several challenges in the context of PSIs. Non-randomized, quasi-experimental methods may not be powered to identify treatment effect heterogeneity estimates to inform a decision model. PSIs are more likely to be funded from multiple public sector budgets, complicating the calculation of health opportunity costs. We estimate a cost-per-disability-adjusted life years of funding the PSF of $2640. Net benefits were positive across the likely range of intervention cost. Social welfare analysis indicates that, compared to gains in average health, changes in health inequalities accounted for a small proportion of the total welfare improvement, even at high levels of social inequality aversion. Evidence on the population health and health equity impacts of PSIs can be incorporated into economic evaluation methods, although with additional complexity and assumptions. The case study results indicate that the PSF is likely to be cost-effective but that the inequality impacts are small and highly uncertain.

On the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in healthcare priority setting

In the past few years, empirical estimates of the marginal cost at which health care produces a quality-adjusted life year (QALY, k) have begun to emerge. In theory, these estimates could be used as cost-effectiveness thresholds by health-maximizing decision makers, but prioritization decisions in practice often include other considerations than just efficiency. Pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden is one such example, where the reimbursement authority (TLV) uses a threshold range to give priority to disease severity and rarity. In this paper, we argue that estimates of k should not be used to inform threshold ranges. Instead, they are better used directly in health technology assessment (HTA) to quantify how much health is forgone when a new technology is funded in place of other healthcare services. Using a recent decision made by TLV as a case, we show that an estimate of k for Sweden implies that reimbursement meant forgoing 8.6 QALYs for every QALY that was gained. Reporting cost-effectiveness evidence as QALYs forgone per QALY gained has several advantages: (i) it frames the decision as assigning an equity weight to QALYs gained, which is more transparent about the trade-off between equity and efficiency than determining a monetary cost per QALY threshold, (ii) it makes it less likely that decision makers neglect taking the opportunity cost of reimbursement into account by making it explicit, and (iii) it helps communicate the reason for sometimes denying reimbursement in a way that might be less objectionable to the public than current practice.

Examining Equity Effects of Health Interventions in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to catalogue and describe published applications of equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs).

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline for English-language, peer-reviewed CEAs published on or before August 2019. We included CEAs that evaluated 2 or more alternatives; explicitly mentioned equity as a consideration or decision-making principle; and applied an equity-informative CEA method to analyze or examine at least 1 equity criterion in an applied CEA. We extracted data on selected characteristics and analyzed reporting quality using the CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles identified through a search and bibliography reviews met the inclusion criteria. All articles were published on or after 2010, with 80% published after 2015. Most studies evaluated primary prevention interventions in disease areas such as cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Equity impact analysis alone was the most common equity-informative CEA (56%), followed by equity impact analysis with financial protection effects (30%). At least 11 different equity criteria have been used in equity-informative CEAs; socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were used most frequently. Seventy-eight percent of studies reported finding "greater value" in an intervention after examining its distributional effects.

CONCLUSION

The number of equity-informative CEAs is increasing, and the wide range of equity criteria, diseases, interventions, settings, and populations represented suggests that broad application of these methods is feasible but will require further refinement. Inclusion of equity into CEAs may shift the value of evaluated interventions and can provide crucial additional information for decision makers.

Alternative Approaches to Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Estimation Within Standard Cost-Effectiveness Models: Literature Review, Feasibility Assessment, and Impact Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has been long debated, but alternative estimation approaches have not been comprehensively evaluated. Our objective was to identify alternatives, characterize them by implementation feasibility, and evaluate the impact of implementing feasible options in cost-effectiveness models developed for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review combining keywords relating to QALYs, methodology alternatives, and cost-effectiveness in PubMed, EconLit, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Articles that discussed alternatives to the conventional QALY were included. Alternatives were characterized by type, data availability, calculation burden, and overall implementation feasibility. The subset of feasible alternatives, that is, sufficient data and methodology compatible with incorporation into common modeling approaches, were evaluated according to impact on incremental QALYs, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB), intervention rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB.

RESULTS

We identified 28 articles discussing 9 alternatives. Feasible alternatives were using patient preference (PP) data; equity weighting according to baseline utility, fair innings, or proportional QALY shortfall; and the equal value of life-years-gained approach. All alternatives affected the incremental QALY and iNMB outcomes, rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB. The PP alternative had the largest and most consistent impact. The PP impact on the proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB, was in the negative direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work is the first comprehensive evaluation of proposed alternatives to the conventional QALY. We found robust literature but few options that were feasible to be implemented in current healthcare decision-making processes.

Public Health Interventions with Harms and Benefits: A Graphical Framework for Evaluating Tradeoffs

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of public health interventions typically report benefits and harms aggregated over the population. However, benefits and harms are not always evenly distributed. Examining disaggregated outcomes enables decision makers to consider health benefits and harms accruing to both intended intervention recipients and others in the population.

METHODS

We provide a graphical framework for categorizing and comparing public health interventions that examines the distribution of benefit and harm between and within population subgroups for a single intervention and compares distributions of harm and benefit for multiple interventions. We demonstrate the framework through a case study of a hypothetical increase in the price of meat (5%, 10%, 25%, or 50%) that, via elasticity of demand, reduces consumption and consequently reduces body mass index. We examine how inequalities in benefits and harms (measured by quality-adjusted life-years) are distributed across a population of white and black males and females.

RESULTS

A 50% meat price increase would yield the greatest net benefit to the population. However, because of reduced consumption among low-weight individuals, black males would bear disproportionate harm relative to the benefit they receive. With increasing meat price, the distribution of harm relative to benefit becomes less "internal" to those receiving benefit and more "distributed" to those not receiving commensurate benefit. When we segment the population by sex only, this result does not hold.

CONCLUSIONS

Disaggregating harms and benefits to understand their differential impact on subgroups can strongly affect which decision alternative is deemed optimal, as can the approach to segmenting the population. Our framework provides a useful tool for illuminating key tradeoffs relevant to harm-averse decision makers and those concerned with both equity and efficiency.

GRADE-Leitlinien zu Gerechtigkeit 4. Berücksichtigung der Gerechtigkeit im Gesundheitswesen bei der Entwicklung von GRADE-Leitlinien: von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evidence to decision process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision frame-work, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members. This is a German translation of the original paper published in English.

RESULTS

Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guide-lines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples.

CONCLUSION

Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup.

Estimating Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD)

Objectives

At any point in time, a person’s lifetime health is the number of healthy life years they are expected to experience during their lifetime. In this article we propose an equity-relevant health metric, Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD), that facilitates comparison of lifetime health for individuals at the onset of different medical conditions, and allows for the assessment of which patient groups are worse off. A method for estimating HAAD is presented, and we use this method to rank four conditions in six countries according to several criteria of “worse off” as a proof of concept.

Methods

For individuals with specific conditions HAAD consists of two components: past health (before disease onset) and future expected health (after disease onset). Four conditions (acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), schizophrenia, and epilepsy) are analysed in six countries (Ethiopia, Haiti, China, Mexico, United States and Japan). Data from 2017 for all countries and for all diseases were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study database. In order to assess who are the worse off, we focus on four measures: the proportion of affected individuals who are expected to have HAAD<20 (T20), the 25^th and 75^th percentiles of HAAD for affected individuals (Q1 and Q3, respectively), and the average HAAD (aHAAD) across all affected individuals.

Results

Even in settings where aHAAD is similar for two conditions, other measures may vary. One example is AML (aHAAD = 59.3, T20 = 2.0%, Q3-Q1 = 14.8) and ALL (58.4, T20 = 4.6%, Q3-Q1 = 21.8) in the US. Many illnesses, such as epilepsy, are associated with more lifetime health in high-income settings (Q1 in Japan = 59.2) than in low-income settings (Q1 in Ethiopia = 26.3).

Conclusion

Using HAAD we may estimate the distribution of lifetime health of all individuals in a population, and this distribution can be incorporated as an equity consideration in setting priorities for health interventions.

Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis

When setting priorities for health, there is broad agreement that a range of social values and ethical principles beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness matter, but exactly how health technology assessment (HTA) should account for a broader set of criteria remains an area of ongoing debate. In light of this, we welcome a recent review paper by Baltussen et al. evaluating the potential of different multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches to enable HTA agencies to incorporate a broader set of values in their appraisals. The authors describe three approaches to MCDA-qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules-laying out their relative advantages and disadvantages and providing recommendations for how they can best be implemented. While we endorse many of the authors' assessments and conclusions, including the critical role of deliberation in any MCDA approach and the undertaking of qualitative MCDA at a minimum, we take a stronger position regarding the flaws of quantitative MCDA and strongly caution against it. We find quantitative MCDA antithetical to at least two of the ways MCDA is intended to improve HTA recommendations: (i) enhancing quality and (ii) promoting transparency. Quantitative MCDA may mask the complex tradeoffs that exist within and between decision criteria and remain generally inaccessible to those who are not well-versed in its technical methods of appraisal. We advocate for a predominantly qualitative approach to MCDA appraisal centered around deliberation and supplemented with decision aids to help account for health opportunity costs.

Distributional equity as a consideration in economic and modelling evaluations of health taxes: A systematic review

PURPOSE/SETTING

The extent to which distributional equity is incorporated into evaluations of the (potential or observed) impact of health taxes is unclear. This systematic review of economic and modelling evaluations investigating taxation on tobacco, sugar-sweetened-beverages (SSBs), or alcohol aims to assess the proportion that have considered distributional impact by income or socioeconomic group. Secondary aims included summarising the reported distributional impacts, for both costs and health benefits.

FINDINGS

Of 4656 search results, 69 studies were included. The majority were economic analyses with epidemiological modelling, with studies on SSB taxes being of the highest quality. Tobacco was most commonly investigated tax, with 37 evaluations. Of these, 12 (32 %) considered distributional equity, with six (27 %) of 22 included SSB evaluations doing the same, and none for alcohol. A tobacco tax favoured lowerincome groups in the distribution of costs in all identified evaluations and for health benefits in nine out of 12 evaluations (75 %). For SSBs, four evaluations (67 %) found costs to favour low-income groups, with three (50 %) for health benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations, evaluations of health taxes do not routinely consider the distributional impact of both costs and health benefits. Evaluations for alcohol taxation are particularly weak in this regard. Where investigated, the majority of evidence found tobacco taxation to favour low-income groups, whereas the limited evidence for SSBs is mixed.

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis to inform in resource allocation

Background: There is a perception held by payers that orphan products are expensive. As a result, the current health technology assessment systems might be too restrictive for orphan drugs, therefore potentially denying patients access to life-saving medicines. While price is important, it should be considered in relation to a broader range of disease-related product attributes that are not necessarily considered by many health technology assessment agencies. To overcome these challenges, multi-criteria decision analysis has been proposed as an alternative to evaluate technologies. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the most frequently cited attributes in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in rare diseases. From the leading attributes identified, we developed a multi-criteria decision analysis framework with which to aggregate the orphan drug values. We subsequently reviewed and plotted the relationship between single attributes and the average annual treatment costs for 8 drugs used in the treatment of rare endocrine diseases. The annual treatment costs were based on UK list prices for the average daily dose per patient. Results: The five most frequently mentioned attributes in the literature were as follows: Disease severity, Unmet need (or availability of therapeutic alternatives), Comparative effectiveness or efficacy, Quality of evidence and Safety & tolerability. Results from the multi-criteria decision analysis framework indicate a wide range of average annual per-patients costs for drugs intended for the same diseases, and likewise for diseases with a similar level of Disease severity. Conclusions: Multi-criteria decision analysis may offer a viable alternative to support discussion in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. The analyses can be used to inform investigations on the application of MCDAs in rare diseases.

[Equity in the health economic evaluation of public health: An overview]

AIM

Starting from the claim that public health interventions should aim to improve health equity, the article examines which methodological approaches of health economic evaluation exist to support the analysis of equity-related outcomes of different interventions.

METHOD

Critical review of the relevant literature.

RESULTS

Against the background of the normative foundations of health economic evaluation, three methodological approaches and three practical methods are presented that allow for considering health equity concerns in health economic evaluations. Implications of the different approaches and references to the German context are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The use of the instruments presented offers good potential to improve transparency with respect to distributive effects of different allocation decisions. This appears to be necessary in order to meet demands for health equity improving public health interventions - especially in the context of the German Prevention Act.

Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today's severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda.

Mapping the evidence on health equity considerations in economic evaluations of health interventions: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Equity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.

DISCUSSION

The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).

A flexible formula for incorporating distributive concerns into cost-effectiveness analyses: Priority weights

Background

Cost effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are widely used to evaluate the opportunity cost of health care investments. However, few functions that take equity concerns into account are available for such CEA methods, and these concerns are therefore at risk of being disregarded. Among the functions that have been developed, most focus on the distribution of health gains, as opposed to the distribution of lifetime health. This is despite the fact that there are good reasons to give higher priority to individuals and groups with a low quality adjusted life expectancy from birth (QALE). Also, an even distribution of health gains may imply an uneven distribution of lifetime health.

Methods

We develop a systematic and explicit approach that allows for the inclusion of lifetime health concerns in CEAs, by creating a new priority weight function, PW = α+(t-γ)·C·e^-β·(t-γ), where t is the health measure. PW has several desirable properties. First, it is continuous and smooth, ensuring that people with similar health characteristics are treated alike. For example, those who achieve 50 QALE should be treated similarly to those who achieve 49.9 QALE. Second, it is flexible regarding shape and outcome measure (i.e., caters to other measures than QALE), so that a broad range of values may be modelled. Third, the coefficients have distinct roles. This allows for the easy manipulation of the PW’s shape. In order to demonstrate how PW may be applied, we use data from a previous study and estimated the coefficients of PW based on two approaches.

Conclusions

Equity concerns are important when conducting CEAs, which means that suitable PWs should be developed. We do not intend to determine which PW is the most appropriate, but to illustrate how a flexible general PW can be estimated based on empirical data.

Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) concepts, models and tools have been used increasingly in health technology assessment (HTA), with several studies pointing out practical and theoretical issues related to its use. This study provides a critical review of published studies on MCDA in the context of HTA by assessing their methodological quality and summarising methodological challenges.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies discussing, developing or reviewing the use of MCDA in HTA using aggregation approaches. Studies were classified according to publication time and type, country of study, technology type and study type. The PROACTIVE-S approach was constructed and used to analyse methodological quality. Challenges and limitations reported in eligible studies were collected and summarised; this was followed by a critical discussion on research requirements to address the identified challenges.

RESULTS

129 journal articles were eligible for review, 56% of which were published in 2015-2017; 42% focused on pharmaceuticals; 36, 26 and 18% reported model applications, issues regarding MCDA implementation analyses, and proposing frameworks, respectively. Poor compliance with good methodological practice (< 25% complying studies) was found regarding behavioural analyses, discussion of model assumptions and uncertainties, modelling of value functions, and dealing with judgment inconsistencies. The five most reported challenges related to evidence and data synthesis; value system differences and participant selection issues; participant difficulties; methodological complexity and resource balance; and criteria and attributes modelling. A critical discussion on ways to address these challenges ensues.

DISCUSSION

Results highlight the need for advancement in robust methodologies, procedures and tools to improve methodological quality of MCDA in HTA studies. Research pathways include developing new model features, good practice guidelines, technologies to enable participation and behavioural research.

Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health

Efficiency as quantified and promoted by cost-effectiveness analysis sometimes conflicts with equity and other ethical values, such as the "rule of rescue" or rights-based ethical values. We describe the utilitarian foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis and compare it with alternative ethical principles. We find that while fallible, utilitarianism is usually superior to the alternatives. This is primarily because efficiency - the maximization of health benefits under a budget constraint - is itself an important ethical value. Other ethical frames may be irrelevant, incompatible with each other, or have unacceptable implications. When alternatives to efficiency are considered for precedence, we propose that it is critical to quantify the trade-offs, in particular, the lost health benefits associated with divergence from strict efficiency criteria. Using an example from HIV prevention in a high-prevalence African country, we show that favoring a rights-based decision could result in 92-118 added HIV infections per $100,000 of spending, compared to one based on cost-effectiveness.

The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.

METHODS

In an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.

RESULTS

The new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria-balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations-and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

The framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

MCDA from a health economics perspective: opportunities and pitfalls of extending economic evaluation to incorporate broader outcomes

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a structured decision-making process that offers greater flexibility to incorporate multiple objectives than cost-effectiveness analysis or benefit-cost analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The flexibility of MCDA requires careful consideration of its methodological underpinnings, analytical forms and cognitive biases that may arise in eliciting trade-off. The methodology of MCDA should ideally incorporate both deliberative and technical processes.

Ethical Considerations for Global Health Decision-Making: Justice-Enhanced Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Technologies for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense

We sought to assess formally the extent to which different control and elimination strategies for human African trypanosomiasis Trypanosoma brucei gambiense (Gambiense HAT) would exacerbate or alleviate experiences of societal disadvantage that traditional economic evaluation does not take into account. Justice-enhanced cost-effectiveness analysis (JE-CEA) is a normative approach under development to address social justice considerations in public health decision-making alongside other types of analyses. It aims to assess how public health interventions under analysis in comparative evaluation would be expected to influence the clustering of disadvantage across three core dimensions of well-being: agency, association and respect. As a case study to test the approach, we applied it to five strategies for Gambiense HAT control and elimination, in combination with two different other evaluations: a cost-effectiveness analysis and a probability of elimination analysis. We have demonstrated how JE-CEA highlights the ethical importance of adverse social justice impacts of otherwise attractive options and how it indicates specific modifications to policy options to mitigate such impacts. JE-CEA holds promise as an approach to help decision makers and other stakeholders consider social justice more fully, explicitly and systematically in evaluating public health programs.

Doing 'Upstream' Priority-Setting for Global Health with Justice: Moving from Vision to Practice?

The vision of global health with justice which Larry Gostin articulates in his book Global Health Law envisages a switch to 'upstream' priority-setting for expenditure on health, with a focus upon social determinants and a goal of redressing health inequalities. This article explores what is meant by this proposal and offers a critical evaluation of it. It is argued that difficulties arise in respect of the ethical and evidential bases for such an approach to the setting of priorities, while significant challenges may also arise in the necessary modification of structures of governance.

Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is frequently used as an input for guiding priority setting in health. However, CEA seldom incorporates information about trade-offs between total health gains and equity impacts of interventions. This study investigates to what extent equity considerations have been taken into account in CEA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using rotavirus vaccination as a case study.

Methods

Specific equity-related indicators for vaccination were first mapped to the Guidance on Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health) checklist criteria. Economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in LMICs identified via a systematic review of the literature were assessed to explore the extent to which equity was considered in the research objectives and analysis, and whether it was reflected in the evaluation results.

Results

The mapping process resulted in 18 unique indicators. Under the 'disease and intervention' criteria, severity of illness was incorporated in 75% of the articles, age distribution of the disease in 70%, and presence of comorbidities in 5%. For the 'social groups' criteria, relative coverage reflecting wealth-based coverage inequality was taken into account in 30% of the articles, geographic location in 27%, household income level in 8%, and sex at birth in 5%. For the criteria of 'protection against the financial and social effects of ill health', age weighting was incorporated in 43% of the articles, societal perspective in 58%, caregiver's loss of productivity in 45%, and financial risk protection in 5%. Overall, some articles incorporated the indicators in their model inputs (20%) while the majority (80%) presented results (costs, health outcomes, or incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) differentiated according to the indicators. Critically, less than a fifth (17%) of articles incorporating indicators did so due to an explicit study objective related to capturing equity considerations. Most indicators were increasingly incorporated over time, with a notable exception of age-weighting of DALYs.

Conclusion

Integrating equity criteria in CEA can help policy-makers better understand the distributional impact of health interventions. This study illustrates how equity considerations are currently being incorporated within CEA of rotavirus vaccination and highlights the components of equity that have been used in studies in LMICs. Areas for further improvement are identified.

Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences

BACKGROUND

The trade-off that society is willing to make to promote a more equitable distribution of health can be represented as a social welfare function (SWF). SWFs are an economic construct that can be used to illustrate concerns for total health with aversion to inequalities between socioeconomic groups.

OBJECTIVE

This study used people's preferences to estimate the shapes of health-related SWFs (HRSWFs). We tested the suitability of this method to derive equity weights.

METHODS

A questionnaire was used to elicit preferences concerning trade-offs between the total level of health and its distribution among two socioeconomic groups. The participant group was a sample of convenience that included a mix of health researchers, academics, clinicians, managers, public servants and research students. The data collected were used to develop HRSWFs with a constant elasticity of substitution. The weight was calculated using the marginal rate of substitution.

RESULTS

A marginal health gain to the lowest socioeconomic position (SEP) group was valued 14.1-81.4 times more than a marginal health gain to the high SEP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence to support the idea that the public may be willing to make trade-offs between efficiency and equity, and that they value health gains differently depending on which socioeconomic group receives the health gain. Further evidence is required before such indicative weights have practical value.

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

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

Hidden costs: The ethics of cost-effectiveness analyses for health interventions in resource-limited settings

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an increasingly appealing tool for evaluating and comparing health-related interventions in resource-limited settings. The goal is to inform decision-makers regarding the health benefits and associated costs of alternative interventions, helping guide allocation of limited resources by prioritising interventions that offer the most health for the least money. Although only one component of a more complex decision-making process, CEAs influence the distribution of health-care resources, directly influencing morbidity and mortality for the world's most vulnerable populations. However, CEA-associated measures are frequently setting-specific valuations, and CEA outcomes may violate ethical principles of equity and distributive justice. We examine the assumptions and analytical tools used in CEAs that may conflict with societal values. We then evaluate contextual features unique to resource-limited settings, including the source of health-state utilities and disability weights, implications of CEA thresholds in light of economic uncertainty, and the role of external donors. Finally, we explore opportunities to help align interpretation of CEA outcomes with values and budgetary constraints in resource-limited settings. The ethical implications of CEAs in resource-limited settings are vast. It is imperative that CEA outcome summary measures and implementation thresholds adequately reflect societal values and ethical priorities in resource-limited settings.

GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members.

RESULTS

Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples.

CONCLUSION

Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup.

Costs and expected gain in lifetime health from intensive care versus general ward care of 30,712 individual patients: a distribution-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians, hospital managers, policy makers, and researchers are concerned about high costs, increased demand, and variation in priorities in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objectives of this modelling study are to describe the extra costs and expected health gains associated with admission to the ICU versus the general ward for 30,712 patients and the variation in cost-effectiveness estimates among subgroups and individuals, and to perform a distribution-weighted economic evaluation incorporating extra weighting to patients with high severity of disease.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic model that estimates the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICER) from ICU admission compared with general ward care using Norwegian registry data from 2008 to 2010. We assigned increasing weights to health gains for those with higher severity of disease, defined as less expected lifetime health if not admitted. The study has inherent uncertainty of findings because a randomized clinical trial comparing patients admitted or rejected to the ICU has never been performed. Uncertainty is explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The mean cost-effectiveness of ICU admission versus ward care was €11,600/QALY, with 1.6 QALYs gained and an incremental cost of €18,700 per patient. The probability (p) of cost-effectiveness was 95% at a threshold of €22,000/QALY. The mean ICER for medical admissions was €10,700/QALY (p = 97%), €12,300/QALY (p = 93%) for admissions after acute surgery, and €14,700/QALY (p = 84%) after planned surgery. For individualized ICERs, there was a 50% probability that ICU admission was cost-effective for 85% of the patients at a threshold of €64,000/QALY, leaving 15% of the admissions not cost-effective. In the distributional evaluation, 8% of all patients had distribution-weighted ICERs (higher weights to gains for more severe conditions) above €64,000/QALY. High-severity admissions gained the most, and were more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, ICU admission versus general ward care was cost-effective at a threshold of €22,000/QALY (p = 95%). According to the individualized cost-effectiveness information, one in six ICU admissions was not cost-effective at a threshold of €64,000/QALY. Almost half of these admissions that were not cost-effective can be regarded as acceptable when weighted by severity of disease in terms of expected lifetime health. Overall, existing ICU services represent reasonable resource use, but considerable uncertainty becomes evident when disaggregating into individualized results.

Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Priority setting in health care has been long recognized as an intrinsically complex and value-laden process. Yet, health technology assessment agencies (HTAs) presently employ value assessment frameworks that are ill fitted to capture the range and diversity of stakeholder values and thereby risk compromising the legitimacy of their recommendations. We propose "evidence-informed deliberative processes" as an alternative framework with the aim to enhance this legitimacy. This framework integrates two increasingly popular and complementary frameworks for priority setting: multicriteria decision analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Evidence-informed deliberative processes are, on one hand, based on early, continued stakeholder deliberation to learn about the importance of relevant social values. On the other hand, they are based on rational decision-making through evidence-informed evaluation of the identified values. The framework has important implications for how HTA agencies should ideally organize their processes. First, HTA agencies should take the responsibility of organizing stakeholder involvement. Second, agencies are advised to integrate their assessment and appraisal phases, allowing for the timely collection of evidence on values that are considered relevant. Third, HTA agencies should subject their decision-making criteria to public scrutiny. Fourth, agencies are advised to use a checklist of potentially relevant criteria and to provide argumentation for how each criterion affected the recommendation. Fifth, HTA agencies must publish their argumentation and install options for appeal. The framework should not be considered a blueprint for HTA agencies but rather an aspirational goal-agencies can take incremental steps toward achieving this goal.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health-the objective underpinning conventional CEA-and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and-crucially-who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs

Background

Since the introduction of the orphan drugs legislation in Europe, it has been suggested that the general method of assessing drugs for reimbursement is not necessarily suitable for orphan drugs. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence indicated that several criteria other than cost and efficacy could be considered in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. This study sought to explore the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) to a range of orphan drugs, with a view to comparing the aggregate scores to the average annual cost per patient for each product, and thus establishing the merit of MCDA as a tool for assessing the value of orphan drugs in relation to their pricings.

Methods

An MCDA framework was developed using the nine criteria proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) for the evaluation of orphan drugs, using the suggested numerical scoring system on a scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion. Correlations between the average annual cost of the drugs and aggregate MCDA scores were tested and plotted graphically. Different weightings for each of the attributes were also tested. A further analysis was conducted to test the impact of including the drug cost as an attribute in the aggregate index scores.

Results

In the drugs studied, the R², that statistically measures how close the data are to the fitted regression line was 0.79 suggesting a strong correlation between the drug scores and the average annual cost per patient.

Conclusion

Despite several limitations of the proposed model, this quantitative study provided insight into using MCDA and its relationship to the average annual costs of the products.

Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning ('core' criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders ('contextual' criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC.

Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Decisions on reimbursement of health interventions in many jurisdictions are informed by health technology assessments (HTAs). Historically, the focus of these has often been cost effectiveness or cost utility, while other criteria were considered informally. More recently, there has been an increasing interest in the formal incorporation of additional criteria using multi-criteria decision analysis. Such an approach has not yet formally been part of decision-making policy in Ireland.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate that cost effectiveness is not the only criterion influencing reimbursement decisions in Ireland. Furthermore, the aim is to reveal criteria that may have informally influenced reimbursement decisions in the past.

METHODS

A list of potential criteria was identified based on the literature, national guidelines and experience of the national HTA agency. Information on each of these criteria was sought for every assessment conducted in Ireland up to July 2015. A logistic regression was fitted to the data to identify influential parameters. Model selection was performed using the Bolasso method.

RESULTS

Thirteen criteria were considered in the analysis. Two members of the HTA review team assessed the performance of the interventions against these criteria. Model selection suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and quality of evidence could be important drivers of reimbursement recommendations in Ireland. Less important drivers suggested include the year of assessment, the level of uncertainty, as well as safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION

The analysis demonstrates that recommendations for or against the reimbursement of technologies in Ireland are not only driven by cost effectiveness. This highlights the need for more formal inclusion of criteria in the process, to improve transparency and ensure consistency.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-exposure HIV Prophylaxis During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding in Sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION

Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV acquisition is cost-effective when delivered to those at substantial risk. Despite a high incidence of HIV infection among pregnant and breastfeeding women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a theoretical increased risk of preterm birth on PrEP could outweigh the HIV prevention benefit.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate a strategy of daily oral PrEP during pregnancy and breastfeeding in SSA. We approached the analysis from a health care system perspective across a lifetime time horizon. Model inputs were derived from existing literature and local sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PrEP versus no PrEP was calculated in 2015 U.S. dollars per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. We evaluated the effect of uncertainty in baseline estimates through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

PrEP administered to pregnant and breastfeeding women in SSA was cost-effective. In a base case of 10,000 women, the administration of PrEP averted 381 HIV infections but resulted in 779 more preterm births. PrEP was more costly per person ($450 versus $117), but resulted in fewer disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) (3.15 versus 3.49). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $965/DALY averted was below the recommended regional threshold for cost-effectiveness of $6462/DALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing PrEP to pregnant and breastfeeding women in SSA is likely cost-effective, although more data are needed about adherence and safety. For populations at high risk of HIV acquisition, PrEP may be considered as part of a broader combination HIV prevention strategy.

HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy"

Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only "in the light of" evidence but also "on the basis of" budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA reports fail to develop ethical arguments and generally do not even mention ethical issues. This comment argues that some of these defects are more apparent than real and are not inherent in HTA - as distinct from being common characteristics found in poorly conducted HTAs. More generally, HTA does not need "extension" since (1) ethical issues are already embedded in HTA processes, not least in their scoping phases, and (2) HTA processes are already sufficiently flexible to accommodate evidence about a wide range of factors, and will not need fundamental change in order to accommodate the new forms of decision-relevant evidence about distributional impact and financial protection that are now starting to emerge. HTA and related techniques are there to support decision-makers who have authority to make decisions. Analysts like us are there to support and advise them (and not to assume the responsibilities for which they, and not we, are accountable). The required quality in HTA then becomes its effectiveness as a means of addressing the issues of concern to decision-makers. What is also required is adherence by competent analysts to a standard template of good analytical practice. The competencies include not merely those of the usual disciplines (particularly biostatistics, cognitive psychology, health economics, epidemiology, and ethics) but also the imaginative and interpersonal skills for exploring the "real" question behind the decision-maker's brief (actual or postulated) and eliciting the social values that necessarily pervade the entire analysis. The product of such exploration defines the authoritative scope of an HTA.