Advertisement

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Technologies: Data Requirements and Challenges

Published:August 06, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.011

      Highlights

      • Governments are putting greater focus on tackling health inequities, and health technology assessment bodies are responding by working to formally incorporate equity considerations into the decision-making process on funding of interventions.
      • Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is a method to assess how health effects and costs are distributed between subpopulations and any ensuing trade-offs between maximizing overall population health and equity. DCEA provides a quantitative method for incorporating equity impact assessment into decision making.
      • Data gaps may limit the implementation of robust DCEA routinely for products undergoing health technology assessment. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and reporting need to be improved and aligned with the equity concepts of interest to decision makers.

      Abstract

      Governments and health technology assessment agencies are putting greater focus on and efforts in understanding and addressing health inequities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to evaluate the costs and health gains of different interventions to inform the decision-making process on funding of new treatments. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is an extension of cost-effectiveness analysis that quantifies the equity impact of funding new treatments. Key challenges for the routine and consistent implementation of DCEA are the lack of clearly defined equity concerns from decision makers and endorsed measures to define equity subgroups and the availability of evidence that allows analysis of differences in data inputs associated with the equity characteristics of interest. In this article, we detail the data gaps and challenges to build robust DCEA analysis routinely in health technology assessment and suggest actions to overcome these hurdles.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Value in Health
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 4th edition. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Claxton K.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        • Torrance G.W.
        Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes.
        Oxford university press, Oxford, United Kingdom2015
      2. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal: process and methods. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
        https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9
        Date accessed: March 5, 2022
      3. Guidelines for preparing a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 5.0. Department of Health, Australian Government.
        • Bellemare C.A.
        • Dagenais P.
        • Suzanne K.
        • et al.
        Ethics in health technology assessment: a systematic review.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018; 34: 447-457
        • Benkhalti M.
        • Espinoza M.
        • Cookson R.
        • Welch V.
        • Tugwell P.
        • Dagenais P.
        Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021; 37: e17
        • Cookson R.
        • Griffin S.
        • Norheim O.F.
        • Culyer A.J.
        Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Quantifying Health Equity Impacts and Trade-Offs.
        Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom2020
      4. New era of public health to tackle inequalities and level up the UK. Department of Health and Social Care.
      5. Key health inequalities in Canada: a national portrait - executive summary. Public Health Agency of Canada, Government of Canada.
      6. Les inégalités sociales et territoriales de santé. Santé publique France [Social and territorial inequalities in health. Public Health France].
        • Culyer A.J.
        • Bombard Y.
        An equity framework for health technology assessments.
        Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 428-441
        • Norheim O.F.
        • Baltussen R.
        • Johri M.
        • et al.
        Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014; 12: 18
        • Ward T.
        • Mujica-Mota R.E.
        • Spencer A.E.
        • Medina-Lara A.
        Incorporating equity concerns in cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic literature review.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2022; 40: 45-64
        • Avanceña A.L.
        • Prosser L.A.
        Examining equity effects of health interventions in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review.
        Value Health. 2021; 24: 136-143
        • Cookson R.
        • Griffin S.
        • Norheim O.F.
        • Culyer A.J.
        • Chalkidou K.
        Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis comes of age.
        Value Health. 2021; 24: 118-120
        • Cookson R.A.
        Equity-informative health technology assessment: a commentary on Ngalesoni, Ruhago, Mori, Robberstad & Norheim.
        Soc Sci Med. 2016; 170: 218-219
        • Dunning L.
        • Owens R.
        • Owen L.
        • et al.
        CHTE methods review: equalities: task and finish group report. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
        • Asaria M.
        • Griffin S.
        • Cookson R.
        • Whyte S.
        • Tappenden P.
        Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes–a methodological case study of the UK bowel cancer screening programme.
        Health Econ. 2015; 24: 742-754
        • Dawkins B.R.
        • Mirelman A.J.
        • Asaria M.
        • Johansson K.A.
        • Cookson R.A.
        Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in low- and middle-income countries: illustrative example of rotavirus vaccination in Ethiopia.
        Health Policy Plan. 2018; 33: 456-463
        • Griffin S.
        • Walker S.
        • Sculpher M.
        Distributional cost effectiveness analysis of West Yorkshire low emission zone policies.
        Health Econ. 2020; 29: 567-579
        • Love-Koh J.
        • Pennington B.
        • Owen L.
        • Taylor M.
        • Griffin S.
        How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions [published correction appears in Soc Sci Med. 2021;280:114060].
        Soc Sci Med. 2020; 265113339
        • Love-Koh J.
        • Cookson R.
        • Gutacker N.
        • Patton T.
        • Griffin S.
        Aggregate distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health technologies.
        Value Health. 2019; 22: 518-526
        • Rouse P.
        • WK P.O.S.B.
        POSB131 Equity and health inequalities: should DCEA be considered for decision making in the United Kingdom?.
        Value Health. 2022; 25: S86
        • Gagné T.
        • Veenstra G.
        Inequalities in hypertension and diabetes in Canada: intersections between racial identity, gender, and income.
        Ethn Dis. 2017; 27: 371-378
        • Holt J.B.
        • Zhang X.
        • Presley-Cantrell L.
        • Croft J.B.
        Geographic disparities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.
        Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011; 6: 321-328
        • Jack R.H.
        • Davies E.A.
        • Renshaw C.
        • et al.
        Differences in breast cancer hormone receptor status in ethnic groups: a London population.
        Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49: 696-702
        • Malta D.
        • Bernal R.
        • de Souza M.
        • Szwarcwald C.
        • Lima M.
        • Barros M.B.
        Social inequalities in the prevalence of self-reported chronic non-communicable diseases in Brazil: national health survey 2013.
        Int J Equity Health. 2016; 15: 153
        • Redondo-Sánchez D.
        • Marcos-Gragera R.
        • Carulla M.
        • et al.
        Lung, breast and colorectal cancer incidence by socioeconomic status in Spain: a population-based multilevel study.
        Cancers. 2021; 13: 2820
      7. English indices of deprivation. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
        • Phillips R.L.
        • Liaw W.
        • Crampton P.
        • et al.
        How other countries use deprivation indices—and why the United States desperately needs one.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2016; 35: 1991-1998
        • Cheung S.
        • Greenway N.
        • Lagord C.
        • Williams L.
        • Kearins O.
        • Lawrence G.
        All breast cancer report: a UK analysis of all symptomatic and screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed in 2006. National Cancer Intelligence Network.
        • Howard F.M.
        • Olopade O.I.
        Epidemiology of triple-negative breast cancer: a review.
        Cancer J. 2021; 27: 8-16
      8. Staging data in England. NCRAS, National Disease Registration Service.
        https://www.cancerdata.nhs.uk/stage_at_diagnosis
        Date accessed: February 11, 2022
        • Welch V.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Ueffing E.
        • et al.
        Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study.
        PLoS One. 2012; 7e31360
        • Geller S.E.
        • Koch A.
        • Pellettieri B.
        • Carnes M.
        Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: have we made progress?.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011; 20: 315-320
        • Hussain-Gambles M.
        • Atkin K.
        • Leese B.
        Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: a review of the literature.
        Health Soc Care Community. 2004; 12: 382-388
      9. 2015-2019 drug trials snapshots summary report. Food and Drug Administration.
        https://www.fda.gov/media/143592/download
        Date accessed: March 5, 2022
      10. 2020 census illuminates racial and ethnic composition of the country. United States Census Bureau.
        • Yang F.
        • Angus C.
        • Duarte A.
        • et al.
        Comparing smoking cessation to screening and brief intervention for alcohol in distributional cost effectiveness analysis to explore the sensitivity of results to socioeconomic inequalities characterised in model inputs. University of York.
        • Kim D.D.
        • Paltiel A.D.
        • Neumann P.J.
        Vaccines are not cost-effective, vaccinations are. Health Affairs.
      11. Position on a European Health Data Space. EFPIA.
        • European Health Data Space
        European Commission.
      12. Review of health and care data security and consent. Department of Health and Social Care.
        • Piquard A.
        • Untersinger M.
        Coup d’arrêt pour le Health Data Hub, projet de centralisation de données médicales impliquant Microsoft. Le Monde.
        • Sharma A.
        • Palaniappan L.
        Improving diversity in medical research.
        Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7: 74
        • Jull J.
        • Whitehead M.
        • Petticrew M.
        • et al.
        When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7e015815
        • Mbuagbaw L.
        • Aves T.
        • Shea B.
        • et al.
        Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials.
        Int J Equity Health. 2017; 16: 93
      13. Trends in racial, ethnic, sex, and rural-urban inequities in health care in medicare advantage: 2009-2018. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
        • Rashid T.
        • Bennett J.E.
        • Paciorek C.J.
        • et al.
        Life expectancy and risk of death in 6791 communities in England from 2002 to 2019: high-resolution spatiotemporal analysis of civil registration data.
        Lancet Public Health. 2021; 6: e805-e816