Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Health equity has risen to prominence on policy agendas in the wake of the universal health coverage movement [1,2,3] and landmark international reports on inequality in health [4,5] and health care [3,6,7]

  • Or explicitly, all cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies already incorporate social value judgments about equity—for example, in scoping and methodologic decisions about the relevant policy options and comparators, which costs and effects to measure, how to compare costs and effects of different kinds, how to aggregate costs and effects for different people and organizations, how to value future costs and effects, and so on [17]. These value judgments are rarely mentioned in applied CEA studies or health technology assessment (HTA) reports but are extensively discussed in textbooks, methods guidance documents, and other underpinning literature [18]

  • We describe two approaches to conducting equity-informative CEA: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Health equity has risen to prominence on policy agendas in the wake of the universal health coverage movement [1,2,3] and landmark international reports on inequality in health [4,5] and health care [3,6,7]. The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that are routinely used around the globe to inform priority setting in health care and public health, rarely provide information about who gains and who loses from health programs or about trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and equity in the distribution of health-related outcomes [8,9,10,11,12].

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call