Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2018

Open Access 01-05-2018 | Original Paper

Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach

Authors: Jeff Round, Mike Paulden

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In publicly funded health care systems, decision makers must continually balance often conflicting priorities of efficiency and equity. Health economists have developed a set of highly sophisticated analytical methods for assessing efficiency, but less attention has been paid to formally incorporating equity considerations into analyses. As a result, where equity is considered is often informal, ad hoc and/or simplistic. This paper is a proposal for a mechanism for formally incorporating equity within the decision process. It begins with an overview of the current literature on equity weighting. It then considers the case of a single equity domain and illustrates how this is currently applied in practice by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It then proposes a more comprehensive method for considering the multi-attribute equity state, where a population exhibits more than one trait considered worthy of differential weighting. Finally, the paper proposes a mechanism by which this could be applied in practice, and concludes with a discussion of the challenges for applying multi-attribute equity weighting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8), 661–677 (2008)CrossRefPubMed Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26(8), 661–677 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Gu, Y., et al.: Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc. Sci. Med. 146, 41–52 (2015)CrossRefPubMed Gu, Y., et al.: Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: a systematic review of what counts and to what extent. Soc. Sci. Med. 146, 41–52 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Rowen, D., et al.: Eliciting societal preferences for weighting QALYs for burden of illness and end of life. Med. Decis. Making 36(2), 210–222 (2016)CrossRefPubMed Rowen, D., et al.: Eliciting societal preferences for weighting QALYs for burden of illness and end of life. Med. Decis. Making 36(2), 210–222 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Panteli, D., Kreis, J., Busse, R.: Considering equity in health technology assessment: an exploratory analysis of agency practices. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(5), 314–323 (2015)CrossRefPubMed Panteli, D., Kreis, J., Busse, R.: Considering equity in health technology assessment: an exploratory analysis of agency practices. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 31(5), 314–323 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference McCabe, C., et al.: Life at a premium: considering an end-of-life premium in value-based reimbursement, in care at the end of life: an economic perspective. Round, J. (eds.) pp. 123–139. Springer, London (2016) McCabe, C., et al.: Life at a premium: considering an end-of-life premium in value-based reimbursement, in care at the end of life: an economic perspective. Round, J. (eds.) pp. 123–139. Springer, London (2016)
6.
go back to reference Wailoo, A., Tsuchiya, A., McCabe, C.: Weighting must wait: incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis may take longer than expected. Pharmacoeconomics 27(12), 983–989 (2009)CrossRefPubMed Wailoo, A., Tsuchiya, A., McCabe, C.: Weighting must wait: incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis may take longer than expected. Pharmacoeconomics 27(12), 983–989 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
7.
9.
go back to reference Dolan, P., et al.: QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 14(2), 197–208 (2005)CrossRefPubMed Dolan, P., et al.: QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 14(2), 197–208 (2005)CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Chamberlain, C., Hollingworth, W.: Where is the evidence for the existence of the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ 349, g5901 (2014)CrossRefPubMed Chamberlain, C., Hollingworth, W.: Where is the evidence for the existence of the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ 349, g5901 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Christensen, H., et al.: Re-evaluating cost effectiveness of universal meningitis vaccination (Bexsero) in England: modelling study. BMJ 349, g5725 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Christensen, H., et al.: Re-evaluating cost effectiveness of universal meningitis vaccination (Bexsero) in England: modelling study. BMJ 349, g5725 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Normand, C.: Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 38(1), 27–31 (2009)CrossRefPubMed Normand, C.: Measuring outcomes in palliative care: limitations of QALYs and the road to PalYs. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 38(1), 27–31 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Chochinov, H.M.: Death, time and the theory of relativity. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 42(3), 460–463 (2011)CrossRefPubMed Chochinov, H.M.: Death, time and the theory of relativity. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 42(3), 460–463 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Paulden, M., et al.: Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3), 255–269 (2015)CrossRefPubMed Paulden, M., et al.: Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3), 255–269 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Lancsar, E., et al.: Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30(2), 466–478 (2011)CrossRefPubMed Lancsar, E., et al.: Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30(2), 466–478 (2011)CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Baker, R., et al.: Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technol. Assess. 14(27), 1 (2010)CrossRef Baker, R., et al.: Weighting and valuing quality-adjusted life-years using stated preference methods: preliminary results from the Social Value of a QALY Project. Health Technol. Assess. 14(27), 1 (2010)CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: It is the lifetime that matters: public preferences over maximising health and reducing inequalities in health. J. Med. Ethics 38(9), 571–573 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Dolan, P., Tsuchiya, A.: It is the lifetime that matters: public preferences over maximising health and reducing inequalities in health. J. Med. Ethics 38(9), 571–573 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Skedgel, C., Wailoo, A., Akehurst, R.: Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment. Med. Decis. Making 35(1), 94–105 (2015)CrossRefPubMed Skedgel, C., Wailoo, A., Akehurst, R.: Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment. Med. Decis. Making 35(1), 94–105 (2015)CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Shah, K.K.: Does society place special value on end of life treatments? In: Care at the end of life: an economic perspective. Round, J. (ed.) Springer, London (2016) Shah, K.K.: Does society place special value on end of life treatments? In: Care at the end of life: an economic perspective. Round, J. (ed.) Springer, London (2016)
29.
go back to reference Stewart, G., et al.: The impact of NICE’s end-of-life threshold on patient access to new cancer therapies in England and Wales. Value in Health 17(3), A6 (2014)CrossRef Stewart, G., et al.: The impact of NICE’s end-of-life threshold on patient access to new cancer therapies in England and Wales. Value in Health 17(3), A6 (2014)CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Paulden, M., et al.: Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics 32(11), 1043–1053 (2014)CrossRefPubMed Paulden, M., et al.: Some inconsistencies in NICE’s consideration of social values. Pharmacoeconomics 32(11), 1043–1053 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
33.
go back to reference Rabin, R., Oemar, M., Oppe, M.: EQ-5D-3L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. Rotterdam, EuroQol Group (2011) Rabin, R., Oemar, M., Oppe, M.: EQ-5D-3L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. Rotterdam, EuroQol Group (2011)
34.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. London (2008) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. London (2008)
35.
go back to reference Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T.N., Coast, J.: Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual. Life Res. 21(1), 167–176 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T.N., Coast, J.: Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual. Life Res. 21(1), 167–176 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Brazier, J.E., et al.: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference-based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ 11(2), 215–225 (2010)CrossRefPubMed Brazier, J.E., et al.: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference-based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur. J. Health Econ 11(2), 215–225 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Coast, J., et al.: Complex valuation: applying ideas from the complex intervention framework to valuation of a new measure for end-of-life care. Pharmacoeconomics 34(5), 499–508 (2016)CrossRefPubMed Coast, J., et al.: Complex valuation: applying ideas from the complex intervention framework to valuation of a new measure for end-of-life care. Pharmacoeconomics 34(5), 499–508 (2016)CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Claxton, K., et al.: Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol. Assess. 19(14), 1–503 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Claxton, K., et al.: Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol. Assess. 19(14), 1–503 (2015)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Paulden, M.: Opportunity cost and social values in health care resource allocation in Department of Medicine. University of Alberta, Edmonton (2016) Paulden, M.: Opportunity cost and social values in health care resource allocation in Department of Medicine. University of Alberta, Edmonton (2016)
Metadata
Title
Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach
Authors
Jeff Round
Mike Paulden
Publication date
01-05-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0897-3

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

The European Journal of Health Economics 4/2018 Go to the issue