Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions

被引:121
作者
Cookson, Richard [1 ,2 ]
Drummond, Mike [1 ]
Weatherly, Helen [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ York, Dept Social Policy & Social Work, York YO10 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
FOLLOW-UP; INEQUALITIES; CARE; PREFERENCES; PROGRAM; CHILDREN; BREAST; POLICY;
D O I
10.1017/S1744133109004903
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Health equity is one of the main avowed objectives of public health policy across the world. Yet economic evaluations in public health (like those in health care more generally) continue to focus on maximizing health gain. Health equity considerations are rarely mentioned. Health economists rely on the quasi-egalitarian value judgment that 'a QALY is a QALY' - that is QALYs are equally weighted and the same health outcome is worth the same no matter how it is achieved or to whom it accrues. This value judgment is questionable in many important circumstances in public health. For example, policy-makers may place rather little value on health outcomes achieved by infringing individual liberties or by discriminating on the basis of age, sex, or race. Furthermore, there is evidence that a majority of the general public wish to give greater weight to health gains accruing to children, the severely ill, and, to a lesser extent, the socio-economically disadvantaged. This paper outlines four approaches to explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation in public health: (i) review of background information on equity, (ii) health inequality impact assessment, (iii) analysis of the opportunity cost of equity, and (iv) equity weighting of health outcomes. The first three approaches can readily be applied using standard methods of health technology assessment, where suitable data are available; whereas approaches for generating equity weights remain experimental. The potential benefits of considering equity are likely to be largest in cases involving: (a) interventions that target disadvantaged individuals or communities and are also relatively cost-ineffective and (b) interventions to encourage lifestyle change, which may be relatively ineffective among 'hard-to-reach' disadvantaged groups and hence may require re-design to avoid increasing health inequalities.
引用
收藏
页码:231 / 245
页数:15
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   14 years of follow-up from the Edinbugh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening [J].
Alexander, FE ;
Anderson, TJ ;
Brown, HK ;
Forrest, APM ;
Hepburn, W ;
Kirkpatrick, AE ;
Muir, BB ;
Prescott, RJ ;
Smith, A .
LANCET, 1999, 353 (9168) :1903-1908
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, HDB HLTH EC
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2006, METH DEV NICE PUBL H
[4]   SOCIAL-POLICY EXPERIMENTATION - A POSITION PAPER [J].
BERK, RA ;
BORUCH, RF ;
CHAMBERS, DL ;
ROSSI, PH ;
WITTE, AD .
EVALUATION REVIEW, 1985, 9 (04) :387-429
[5]   FOLLOW-UP DATA ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEW-ZEALAND NATIONAL SCHOOL-BASED CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAM [J].
BRIGGS, F ;
HAWKINS, RMF .
CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT, 1994, 18 (08) :635-643
[6]   EQUITY AND EQUALITY IN HEALTH AND HEALTH-CARE [J].
CULYER, AJ ;
WAGSTAFF, A .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 1993, 12 (04) :431-457
[7]   NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process [J].
Culyer, Anthony J. .
HEALTH ECONOMICS POLICY AND LAW, 2006, 1 (03) :299-318
[8]   QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature [J].
Dolan, P ;
Shaw, R ;
Tsuchiya, A ;
Williams, A .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2005, 14 (02) :197-208
[9]   An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health [J].
Dolan, P ;
Olsen, JA ;
Menzel, P ;
Richardson, J .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 12 (07) :545-551
[10]   Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'? [J].
Donaldson, C .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 49 (04) :551-563