Richardson Jeff, Schlander Michael
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) & University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2018 Dec 20;7(1):1557981. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981. eCollection 2019.
The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP's) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD's).
支持卫生技术评估(HTA)的经济评估应向政策制定者说明特定资源配置为社会带来的价值。然而,经济评估的理论和实践都未能令人满意地反映社会价值。两者主要关注效率,通常将效率概念化为效用或质量调整生命年(QALY)的最大化。重点在于服务及其所带来的益处。这导致了一种评估方法,该方法歧视了人群希望优先考虑的群体和治疗方法。这包括针对罕见病患者的高成本治疗。与现行方法形成对比的是,越来越多的证据表明,公众更倾向于一个以公平为重点的框架,在这个框架中,服务不再处于核心地位,取而代之的是患者。然而,实现公平的方法是临时的且不够完善。本文首先回顾了经济评估的理论,并认为其对理论所定义的个人效用和效率的关注忽略了潜在的重要社会价值。文中呈现了一些与人群价值观相关的实证证据,并对第一作者的四项研究进行了综述。这些研究表明,当人们从公民的社会视角出发时,他们倾向于以一种不排除那些需要无成本效益服务的患者(如孤儿药品(OMP)和超罕见病(URD)患者的治疗)的方式来分配卫生预算。