Seo Dominique, Patil Divya, Vandigo Joe, Mattingly T Joseph
Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Applied Patient Experience, LLC, Washington, D.C., USA.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2024 Sep 28;16:721-731. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S471855. eCollection 2024.
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice.
We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).
Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations.
Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.
成本效益分析(CEA)基于相对价值比较干预措施,是价值评估的一个组成部分。尽管有建议要求经济学家在CEA中考虑影响医疗资源分配决策的差异,但利益相关者认为,价值评估框架在实践中并不一致。
我们审查了一家美国价值评估组织制作的价值评估报告,以确定患者和护理人员的意见如何可能影响该组织对健康差异的考虑。我们从“患者和护理人员视角”“背景因素及其他潜在益处”等报告章节中有目的地提取并分类与健康差异相关的信息,以呈现该组织患者参与工作所认可的数据。我们对这些章节中的文本进行了主题分析,并映射到美国国家少数民族健康与健康差异研究所(NIMHD)认可的健康差异框架。
我们的分析纳入了19份证据报告。我们从外部利益相关者的角度或报告中认可的内容中确定了30个与公平相关的主题,以及17个与公平相关的主题,这些主题反映了经济模型开发者在CEA的正式部分中为解决健康差异所采取的行动。我们发现了价值评估组织在成本效益估计中明确考虑健康差异的例子。然而,各报告中的明确考虑并不一致,在模型开发过程中不一定与患者和护理人员的意见一致,也不一定与该组织自身的背景因素一致。
我们的研究结果强调,需要一种系统的方法来在价值评估框架内考虑健康差异,并且在最终成本效益方法的确定方式上需要提高透明度。