Remme Michelle, Martinez-Alvarez Melisa, Vassall Anna
Social and Mathematical Epidemiology (SaME) Group, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Social and Mathematical Epidemiology (SaME) Group, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):699-704. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.009. Epub 2017 Jan 3.
Good health is a function of a range of biological, environmental, behavioral, and social factors. The consumption of quality health care services is therefore only a part of how good health is produced. Although few would argue with this, the economic framework used to allocate resources to optimize population health is applied in a way that constrains the analyst and the decision maker to health care services. This approach risks missing two critical issues: 1) multiple sectors contribute to health gain and 2) the goods and services produced by the health sector can have multiple benefits besides health. We illustrate how present cost-effectiveness thresholds could result in health losses, particularly when considering health-producing interventions in other sectors or public health interventions with multisectoral outcomes. We then propose a potentially more optimal second best approach, the so-called cofinancing approach, in which the health payer could redistribute part of its budget to other sectors, where specific nonhealth interventions achieved a health gain more efficiently than the health sector's marginal productivity (opportunity cost). Likewise, other sectors would determine how much to contribute toward such an intervention, given the current marginal productivity of their budgets. Further research is certainly required to test and validate different measurement approaches and to assess the efficiency gains from cofinancing after deducting the transaction costs that would come with such cross-sectoral coordination.
良好的健康状况是一系列生物、环境、行为和社会因素作用的结果。因此,优质医疗服务的消费只是实现良好健康状况的一部分。尽管很少有人会对此提出异议,但用于分配资源以优化人群健康的经济框架在应用时,会限制分析人员和决策者仅关注医疗服务。这种方法可能会忽略两个关键问题:1)多个部门对健康改善都有贡献;2)卫生部门生产的商品和服务除了健康效益外,还可能带来多种益处。我们举例说明当前的成本效益阈值如何可能导致健康损失,特别是在考虑其他部门的健康促进干预措施或具有多部门成果的公共卫生干预措施时。然后,我们提出一种可能更优的次优方法,即所谓的共同融资方法,在这种方法中,卫生支付方可以将其部分预算重新分配给其他部门,在这些部门中,特定的非卫生干预措施比卫生部门的边际生产率(机会成本)更有效地实现了健康改善。同样,其他部门将根据其预算的当前边际生产率来确定对这种干预措施的贡献程度。当然,还需要进一步的研究来测试和验证不同的测量方法,并评估扣除跨部门协调所带来的交易成本后共同融资所带来的效率提升。