Welfarism and extra-welfarism: a critical overview

Economic evaluations and costing studies of lung transplantation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of the joint clinical and economic impacts of lung transplant and associated technologies is crucial for evidence-informed decision-making and wise allocation of scarce healthcare resources. We performed a scoping review to summarize and categorize the available evidence of the costs and cost-effectiveness of lung transplantation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED, and EconLit was performed to identify studies involving lung transplantation for adults that measured costs, cost-effectiveness, or which described themselves as economic evaluations. A scoping review was performed in adherence to the framework described by Arksey & O'Malley. Risk of bias was assessed in included studies using the ECOBIAS and CHEC-list tools.

RESULTS

In total, 324 studies were identified, of which 28 met inclusion criteria. Cost-utility estimates of lung transplant versus waitlist, from the healthcare payer perspective and a time-horizon of at least 10-years ranged between $42,459 and $154,051 per quality-adjusted life year. Common topics of study included lung transplant versus waitlist care, immunosuppression, organ retrieval and allocation, and mechanical life support.

CONCLUSIONS

Sources of variation in costs-assessments and economic evaluations included differences in the type of study performed, payer perspective adopted, study time horizon, and variation in clinical practice. The best available cost-utility estimates for lung transplant versus waitlist may represent cost-effectiveness under some circumstances, but high-quality evidence is lacking. Further cost-utility analyses, with sufficient methodologic rigour, are required to overcome the observed variation in results and confirm cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care in lung transplantation.

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Disentangling the welfarism/extra-welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine-grained categorization

In health economics, the distinction between welfarism and extra-welfarism has been employed to discuss various epistemological and normative differences between health evaluation approaches. However, a clear consensus on the definition of either welfarism, extra-welfarism, or the differences between the two sets of approaches has not emerged. I propose an alternative set of distinctions that allows for a more fine-grained categorization of health evaluation approaches. This categorization focuses on five dimensions: (1) the maximand of an evaluation approach, (2) its sensitivity toward normative concerns that defy compensation, (3) its position on which groups of individuals or collective entities act as sources of values, (4) its sensitivity to changes of mind, and (5) the inclusion of process-external values.

When Tissue is an Issue the Liquid Biopsy is Nonissue: A Review

Precision medicine has impacted the field of medical oncology by introducing personalized therapies, improving all measurable outcomes. This field, in turn, has expanded to obtaining and analyzing a vast and ever-increasing amount of genomic information. One technique currently applied is the liquid biopsy, which consists of detecting and isolating DNA and exosomes in cancer patients. Newly developed techniques have made it possible to use the liquid biopsy in a wide range of settings. However, challenges regarding the validation of its clinical utility exist because of a lack of standardization across different techniques and tumor types, confounder genomic information, lack of appropriate clinical trial designs, and a non-measured, and therefore not estimated, economic impact on population health. Nowadays, liquid biopsy is not routinely used, but ongoing research is increasing its popularity, and a new era in oncology is developing. Therefore, it is essential to have an in-depth understanding of the liquid biopsy technique. In this review, we summarize the leading techniques and liquid biopsy applications in cancer.

Challenges and opportunities of cfDNA analysis implementation in clinical practice: Perspective of the International Society of Liquid Biopsy (ISLB)

Precision medicine was born with the development of new diagnostic techniques and targeted drugs, yielding better outcomes in cancer care. With the evolution and increasing sensitivity for detecting oncogenic drivers, liquid biopsies (LBs), specifically cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis, have been proposed as a minimally-invasive technique for genomic profiling. Ranging from sequencing techniques to PCR-based methods and other more complex strategies, this approach, currently applicable in some solid tumors with robust evidence, is showing promising opportunities in other cancers. However, difficulties in validating their clinical utility exist within limitation at different levels among several techniques, reporting of the results, lack of appropriate clinical trial designs, and unknown economic impact. One of the aims of the ISLB is to create recommendations to develop reliable and sustainable diagnostic, prognostic and predictive tools using LBs. This paper is addressing these objectives, helping the healthcare providers and scientific community to understand the potential of LB.

The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy

In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation.