Office of Health Economics, 2nd Floor, Goldings House, Hay's Galleria, 2 Hay's Lane, London, SE1 2HB, UK.
Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 Dec;41(12):1557-1561. doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01316-0. Epub 2023 Sep 2.
The provision of informal (unpaid) care can impose significant 'spillover effects' on carers, and accounting for these effects is consistent with the efficiency and equity objectives of health technology assessment (HTA). Inclusion of these effects in health economic models, particularly carer health-related quality of life (QOL), can have a substantial impact on net quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains and the relative cost effectiveness of new technologies. Typically, consideration of spillover effects improves the value of a technology, but in some circumstances, consideration of spillover effects can lead to situations whereby life-extending treatments for patients may be considered cost ineffective due to their impact on carer QOL. In this piece we revisit the classic 'QALY trap' and introduce an analogous 'carer QALY trap' which may have practical implications for economic evaluations where the inclusion of carer QOL reduces incremental QALY gains. Such results may align with a strict QALY-maximisation rule, however we consider the extent to which this principle may be at odds with the preferences of carers themselves (and possibly society more broadly), potentially leading decision makers into the carer QALY trap as a result. We subsequently reflect on potential solutions, highlighting the important (albeit limited) role that deliberation has to play in HTA.
非正式(无偿)护理的提供可能会对护理人员造成重大的“溢出效应”,考虑这些效应符合卫生技术评估(HTA)的效率和公平目标。将这些效应纳入健康经济模型中,特别是护理人员的健康相关生活质量(QOL),会对净质量调整生命年(QALY)的收益和新技术的相对成本效益产生重大影响。通常情况下,考虑溢出效应会提高技术的价值,但在某些情况下,考虑溢出效应可能会导致由于对护理人员 QOL 的影响,延长患者寿命的治疗方法被认为不具有成本效益。在这篇文章中,我们重新审视了经典的“QALY 陷阱”,并引入了一个类似的“护理人员 QALY 陷阱”,这可能对纳入护理人员 QOL 会降低增量 QALY 收益的经济评估具有实际意义。这样的结果可能符合严格的 QALY 最大化规则,但我们考虑了这一原则在多大程度上可能与护理人员自身的偏好(可能更广泛地涉及整个社会)相冲突,从而使决策者陷入护理人员 QALY 陷阱。随后,我们反思了潜在的解决方案,强调了审议在 HTA 中发挥的重要(尽管有限)作用。