Williams Alan H, Cookson Richard A
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Winter;22(1):1-9. doi: 10.1017/s026646230605077x.
Health technology assessment (HTA) currently focuses on efficiency, rather than equity, on the basis that its primary objective is to maximize population health. Yet a strict cost-effectiveness approach sometimes conflicts with important equity concerns, such as the reduction of socioeconomic health inequalities. Managing such equity-efficiency trade-offs on the basis of intuition is unsatisfactory in a democracy, as it arouses suspicions of special pleading and favoritism toward vested interests. Over the next few decades, therefore, decision making may progress through up to three further stages of development observed historically in other areas of resource allocation. Stage two involves case law, limited to principles distilled from precedent. Stage three involves codification, seeking to generalize these principles without specifying their relative weights. Finally, at stage four, quantitative trade-offs are incorporated into a formula. At stage four, deliberation centers on adjustments to the formula, which would then be applied impartially, transparently, and fair-mindedly to all future decisions. Methods already exist for valuing equity-efficiency trade-offs, based on established methodological principles for valuing trade-offs between different dimensions of health. Early findings indicate that the general public thinks that social class inequalities are more inequitable than those by smoking status, with inequalities between the sexes somewhere in between. Relative weights can be calculated from these data, although the data are not yet comprehensive enough to do this credibly for current policy purposes. In the mean time, the equity-efficiency trade-offs suggested by current decisions can be estimated using standard cost-effectiveness analysis. This is because every departure from a strict cost-effectiveness approach has an opportunity cost. The size of that opportunity cost is a test of how much weight a particular equity concern is deemed to merit.
卫生技术评估(HTA)目前侧重于效率而非公平,其依据是其主要目标是使人群健康最大化。然而,严格的成本效益方法有时会与重要的公平问题相冲突,比如减少社会经济健康不平等。在民主制度下,仅凭直觉处理这种公平与效率的权衡并不令人满意,因为这会引发对特殊诉求以及偏袒既得利益的怀疑。因此,在未来几十年里,决策制定可能会经历在资源分配的其他领域历史上观察到的至多三个进一步的发展阶段。第二阶段涉及判例法,仅限于从先例中提炼出的原则。第三阶段涉及编纂法典,旨在概括这些原则而不具体规定其相对权重。最后,在第四阶段,将定量权衡纳入一个公式。在第四阶段,审议集中在对公式的调整上,然后该公式将公正、透明且公正地应用于所有未来决策。基于评估健康不同维度之间权衡的既定方法原则,已经存在评估公平与效率权衡的方法。早期研究结果表明,公众认为社会阶层不平等比吸烟状况导致的不平等更不公平,性别不平等则介于两者之间。虽然这些数据还不够全面,无法为当前政策目的可靠地计算相对权重,但可以从这些数据中计算出相对权重。与此同时,可以使用标准成本效益分析来估计当前决策所暗示的公平与效率权衡。这是因为每一次偏离严格的成本效益方法都有机会成本。该机会成本的大小检验了特定公平问题被认为应得的权重。