Bhopal Anand, Sharma Siddhanth, Norheim Ole F
Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting in Health (BCEPS), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting in Health (BCEPS), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, and adjunct professor of global health and population, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Future Healthc J. 2023 Nov;10(3):308-312. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2022-0127.
Extensive work is underway to quantify the carbon footprint of specific healthcare interventions and identify ways to minimise healthcare-related emissions; however, it remains unclear how to balance the relative benefits from delivering healthcare with the harm from the associated carbon footprint. To estimate emissions-related harms, we used the Mortality Cost of Carbon, a recently developed metric from environmental economics, which presents the impacts of carbon emissions in the form of excess deaths. We convert deaths into years of life lost and compare this with the healthy life years gained, under two temperature scenarios: 'Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy Model with an Endogenous Mortality Response' (DICE-EMR) (2.4°C) and 'DICE-Baseline' (4.1°C). As a case study, we use haemodialysis, a life-prolonging intervention with a large carbon footprint. We estimate that 19-53 and 10-25 healthy life years are gained from haemodialysis per year of life lost from the associated emissions in the DICE-EMR and DICE-Baseline scenarios, respectively, depending on the country and treatment regimen. This brings the distribution of harms, benefits and tradeoffs inherent to the decarbonisation of healthcare into sharper focus. More fully accounting for the harm imposed by carbon emissions could result in better value investments to lower the carbon footprint of interventions and support the implementation of the net-zero healthcare agenda.
目前正在进行大量工作,以量化特定医疗干预措施的碳足迹,并确定减少医疗相关排放的方法;然而,如何在提供医疗服务的相对益处与相关碳足迹造成的危害之间取得平衡,仍不明确。为了估计与排放相关的危害,我们使用了“碳的死亡率成本”,这是环境经济学中最近开发的一个指标,它以超额死亡的形式呈现碳排放的影响。我们将死亡转化为生命年损失,并在两种温度情景下,将其与获得的健康生命年进行比较:“具有内生死亡率响应的动态综合气候经济模型”(DICE-EMR)(2.4°C)和“DICE基线”(4.1°C)。作为一个案例研究,我们使用血液透析,这是一种具有巨大碳足迹的延长生命的干预措施。我们估计,在DICE-EMR和DICE基线情景下,根据国家和治疗方案的不同,血液透析每年因相关排放导致的生命损失所获得的健康生命年分别为19-53年和10-25年。这使医疗保健脱碳所固有的危害、益处和权衡的分布更加清晰。更全面地考虑碳排放造成的危害,可能会带来更具价值的投资,以降低干预措施的碳足迹,并支持实现医疗保健净零议程。