Cookson Richard, Mirelman Andrew J, Griffin Susan, Asaria Miqdad, Dawkins Bryony, Norheim Ole Frithjof, Verguet Stéphane, J Culyer Anthony
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027.
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.
本文旨在指导如何运用成本效益分析(CEA)来解决健康公平问题。我们首先介绍“公平影响平面”,这是一种用于权衡改善总体健康(传统CEA的核心目标)与公平目标(如减少健康方面的社会不平等或优先照顾重症患者)之间关系的工具。改善总体健康可能与减少健康方面的社会不平等相冲突,例如,向弱势社区有效提供服务需要额外成本时。一个成本增加的健康项目中谁受益谁受损,取决于人们在健康风险、接受程度、质量、依从性、受益能力方面的差异,以及至关重要的是,谁承担了将稀缺资源从其他用途转移过来的机会成本。我们描述了运用CEA解决健康公平问题的两种主要方式:1)公平影响分析,即按与公平相关的变量(如社会经济地位、地理位置、种族、性别和疾病严重程度)对成本和效果的分布进行量化;2)公平权衡分析,即对改善总体健康与其他公平目标之间的权衡进行量化。分析公平权衡的一种方法是以放弃的健康为代价,计算更公平但成本效益较低的选项的成本。另一种方法是利用公平权重或参数,探索选择更公平但成本效益较低选项需要多大程度地关注公平。我们希望本文能帮助健康技术评估界应对目前可用于进行具有公平信息的CEA的实际选项选择,使政策制定者更好地理解公平影响和权衡。