National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK; University College London, UK.
University College London, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 2024 Sep;357:117220. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117220. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
The focus on health maximisation in a healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) - that is health gains are of equal value regardless of the recipient- has significant implications as health systems attempt to address persistent and growing health inequities. This study aimed to systematically compare and contrast the equity principles of different health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and how equity is addressed in HEE guidelines.
HTA agencies were identified through the ISPOR, GEAR, iDSI, HTAi, INAHTA, HTAsiaLink, and RedETSA websites in June 2021 and updated in August 2023. Agencies websites were then searched to retrieve HEE guidelines. The guidelines were grouped into two categories: well-established and newly-developed agency guidelines, based on whether or not they published their first guidelines before 2009. Data extracted summarised the methodological details in the reference cases, including specifics on how equity featured and in what role. In those agencies where equity did not feature explicitly in the HEE guidelines, an additional search of the agency website was undertaken to understand if equity featured in those agencies' decision-making frameworks.
The study included 46 guidelines from 51 countries. Only 30% of the guidelines were explicit about the equity assumptions. Health equity (using a broad definition) was mentioned in 29 guidelines and 14 included a specific definition while only seven recommended specific methods to incorporate inequalities. Addressing equity concerns was usually suggested as an additional analyses rather than a key part of the assessment. It was unclear how equity was incorporated into decision-making processes. In addition, equity was mentioned in other guidance - such as decision-making frameworks - provided by five agencies that did not mention it in the HEE guidelines, and 7 of 14 topic selection criteria that were identified.
Equity is given less attention than efficiency in HEE guidelines. This indicates that HTA agencies while subscribing to an extra-welfarist approach have a narrow evaluative space - focusing on maximising health and not considering the opportunity cost of the equity constraint. The omission of equity and the lack of systematic approaches in guidelines poses a threat to the international endeavours to reduce inequities. It is timely for HTA agencies to reconsider their positions on equity explicitly.
在医疗保健经济评估(HEE)中强调健康最大化,即无论接受者是谁,健康收益都具有同等价值,这对试图解决持续存在和不断加剧的健康不平等问题的卫生系统具有重大影响。本研究旨在系统比较和对比不同医疗技术评估(HTA)机构的公平原则,以及 HEE 指南中如何解决公平问题。
通过 ISPOR、GEAR、iDSI、HTAi、INAHTA、HTAsiaLink 和 RedETSA 网站于 2021 年 6 月确定了 HTA 机构,并于 2023 年 8 月进行了更新。然后在各机构网站上搜索 HEE 指南。根据他们是否在 2009 年之前发布了第一份指南,将指南分为两类:成熟的和新制定的机构指南。提取的数据总结了参考案例中的方法学细节,包括公平特征及其作用的具体信息。在那些公平特征没有明确体现在 HEE 指南中的机构中,还对机构网站进行了额外搜索,以了解公平特征是否体现在这些机构的决策框架中。
该研究包括来自 51 个国家的 46 条指南。只有 30%的指南明确了公平假设。29 条指南提到了健康公平(采用广义定义),其中 14 条包含了具体定义,而只有 7 条建议采用具体方法来纳入不平等因素。解决公平问题通常被建议作为额外的分析,而不是评估的关键部分。尚不清楚公平如何纳入决策过程。此外,五个机构在 HEE 指南中未提及,但在其他指南(如决策框架)中提到了公平,在 14 个专题选择标准中,有 7 个也提到了公平。
在 HEE 指南中,公平比效率受到的关注较少。这表明,HTA 机构虽然遵循了额外福利主义方法,但评估空间狭窄,只关注最大化健康,而不考虑公平约束的机会成本。指南中省略公平以及缺乏系统方法对减少不平等的国际努力构成了威胁。HTA 机构现在及时明确其对公平的立场是很有必要的。