Background
The past decade, medical technology assessment focused on cost-effectiveness analysis, yet there is an increasing need to consider equity implications of health interventions as well. This article addresses three equity–efficiency trade-off methods proposed in the literature. Moreover, it demonstrates their impact on cost-effectiveness analyses in current breast cancer control options for women of different age groups.
Methods
We adapted an existing breast cancer model to estimate cost-effectiveness and equity effects of breast cancer interventions. We applied three methods to quantify the equity–efficiency trade-offs: 1) targeting specific groups, comparing disparities at baseline and in different intervention scenarios; 2) equity weighting, valuing low and high health gains differently; and 3) multicriteria decision analysis, weighing multiple equity and efficiency criteria. We compared the resulting composite league tables of all approaches.
Results
The approaches show that a comprehensive breast cancer program, including screening, for women below 75 years of age was most attractive in both the group targeting approach and the equity weighting approach. Such control programs would reduce disparities with 56% and at €1908 per equity quality-adjusted life-year gained. In the multicriteria approach, a comprehensive treatment program for women below 75 years of age and treatment in stage III breast cancer were most attractive, with both an 82% selection probability, followed by screening programs for the two age groups.
Conclusion
In the three equity weighing approaches, targeting women below 75 years of age was more cost-effective and led to more equitable distributions of health. This likely is similar in other fatal diseases with similar age distributions. The approaches may lead to different outcomes in nonfatal disease.
The distribution of the disease burden [1,2] and treatment benefits
[3,4] are frequently an area of health economics research. In
breast cancer, control studies reveal differences in disease burden
by race [2], urbanization [5], socioeconomic status [6], and insurance
status [7]. These studies typically report disparities in incidence,
prevalence, stage distribution, and disease mortality. In
some studies, differences in quality-adjusted life expectancy are
calculated [8]. One may distinguish three ways of equity reporting
[9].
First, one may observe differences in health outcomes, such as
life expectancy, quality of life, and incidence of a condition.
Second, disparities may be reported in the provision of health
care with those with a more severe condition receiving less, i.e.,
vertical equity. Third, inequities may be related to dissimilar use
of health care for individuals with the same health, i.e., horizontal
equity [9]. These three types of equity are interrelated, as
utilization of health care is related to health outcomes, and both
are related to difference in access. In all cases, inequalities may be
reduced through the provision of additional health care to underprivileged
groups, for example, by differential reimbursement of
health packages [10].
Descriptive and distinct information about health disparities
and cost-effectiveness estimates in relation to health interventions
may be available and may give insight. Yet, due to the descriptive
nature, its use in health policy, addressing equity and efficiency, is
limited. Such a broad approach to evidence-based priority setting
in health programming would use efficiency information on
available strategies, as well as their potential for reducing existing
disparities. Without this, reduction of inequalities as a policy
goal remains a matter of intuition and debate, rather than of
systematic evaluation. If so, still, interventions may have differential
effects on the distribution of health depending on the way
health inequalities are actually defined, measured, and addressed.
Methodological studies on the use of equity considerations in
cost-effectiveness analysis and its effect on health inequalities are
reported [11–15]. Nevertheless, comparisons of the impact of
these methods in economic evaluation have, so far, not been
done, and any application in breast cancer control is absent. We
distinguished three different methods that can be potentially
beneficial in priority setting: targeting specific groups, equity
weighting [13], and multicriteria decision analysis [11,16].
The aim of the article is to show the potential and the impact
of these approaches in the use of cost-effectiveness analysis, e.g.,
by government agencies responsible for the selection of health
benefit packages. Such processes may have yet to become more
explicit, transparent, and thorough if equity implications are to
be considered similarly as and parallel to cost-effectiveness analyses.
Our perspective is societal and governmental, given the
nature of any operational equity–efficiency approach.We explain three approaches in the method section and relate
them to the underlying theory. Subsequently, we demonstrate
their application in cost-effectiveness analyses, aiming at a rank
order of optional interventions. We apply the equityincorporating
approaches for breast cancer control evaluations
using an existing breast cancer life table model [17], addressing
the existing controversy in breast cancer control options by age
groups. Differentiating breast cancer control options by age is
subject to debate [18–20].We explain three approaches in the method section and relate
them to the underlying theory. Subsequently, we demonstrate
their application in cost-effectiveness analyses, aiming at a rank
order of optional interventions. We apply the equityincorporating
approaches for breast cancer control evaluations
using an existing breast cancer life table model [17], addressing
the existing controversy in breast cancer control options by age
groups. Differentiating breast cancer control options by age is
subject to debate [18–20].
Interventions aimed at women less than 75 years of age rank
higher in all of the equity-including approaches. Treatment scenarios
for women of 75 and over lead to larger health disparities
between the two age groups; have lower equity-adjusted CERs;
and are less likely to have a high probability of selection in
applying multiple criteria.
The results of the target group approach can be explained by
the relative high average loss of healthy life-years at breast cancer
diagnoses among ages below 75 in the base-case scenario (i.e., no
treatment for either group). Women that received a diagnosis of
breast cancer aged 80 already have lived 10 more years in good
health than women that received a diagnosis at age 70. Therefore,
any intervention aimed at the disadvantaged group (i.e.,
women of lower ages with breast cancer) in the calculation will
result in positive effects on the distribution of health outcomes
across all ages.
The use of equity weights further increases the attractiveness
of treating women below 75 years of age and those of 75 and
over, as compared with the regular efficiency approach. This is
because equity weights are higher for women below 75 years
than for women with higher ages, due to the differences in years
lived in good health and the remaining potential life span.
The multicriteria decision analysis shows that having a
disease at a lower age is an important criterion. There are other
contributing factors as the number of potential beneficiaries is
higher, the cost-efficiency ratio is lower, and the net individual
health benefits are higher in this age group. Hence, interventions
aimed at women below the age of 75 are more likely to be on the
top of the league table.
Although we adapted the model distinguishing different
breast cancer stages, there are constraints using the present breast
cancer model [17]. Yet we did not incorporate implementation
costs. This may vary by group. In addition, the input data used
for the analysis (i.e., the epidemiological data, equity weights,and the coefficients in the multicriteria decision analysis) were
not all gathered in a similar setting. Consequently, the measured
equity impact does not reflect true distributional preferences for
a single assessed population. For these reasons, our results should
be used with caution. Nevertheless, the significance of this
research does not depend on the exact numbers and position in
the league tables for the selected interventions. Testing and comparing
the potential and its order of magnitude of the three
existing equity–efficiency trade-off applications in health technology
assessment is the main thrust of our article.
Nevertheless, we consider the preference of targeting women
in lower age group as rather robust in the case of breast cancer
control. The methods applied in this area do not result in large
differences between them. Research that addresses interventions
for different diseases, among more heterogeneous groups, and
distributed differently across age groups, may not show similar
patterns and cross-consistency among the three new league
tables. This could potentially make the selection of a single
equity–efficiency trade-off approach a delicate matter.
We defined equity in health in terms of changes of health
outcomes given a particular condition and not in terms of healthcare
access or net health gains. We believe that equity considerations
should be concerned with the presence, severity, and
duration of illness as well as with longevity and lifetime benefits,
i.e., the fair innings principle. Hence, health should be measured
in terms of disability-adjusted life expectancy, health-adjusted life
expectancy, or lifetime QALYs. These measures combine severity
of illness and the fair innings principle, and may account for the
prevailing concepts of equity [29]. We believe that the three
approaches used in this article all incorporated (some of) these
properties of equity.
Nevertheless, the approaches do not deal with equity in the
same way; they all have their own strengths and weaknesses, and
seem to be more complementary than mutually exclusive. Simply
targeting underprivileged groups is the least comprehensive way
to go about the equity–efficiency trade-off as it does not require
any prior data collection on preferences of the general public or
policymakers. In addition, a health gap is an intuitively understandable
measure of differences in health between groups as well
as the gap-reducing effect of interventions, either in absolute or
relative terms. Nevertheless, targeting specific groups does not
simultaneously assess the impact that an intervention has on
equity and its cost-effectiveness. This means that the trade-off
between equity and efficiency remains implicit, albeit it becomes
less transparent.
Equity weighting explicitly combines those preferences with
associated costs and health effects in an easily understandable
measure: the equity adjusted CER, incorporating the willingness
to give up life-years for equity reasons. This measure can be
interpreted as a regular CER. Although it may be easy to interpret
equity weights and equity-weighted outcomes, it may be
difficult to understand in which way equity weights are measured
and calculated.
Multicriteria decision analysis incorporates more aspects of
health interventions than the other two approaches. Nevertheless,
preferences about the relative importance of different criteria are
measured in a different context and may be situation determined.
Another disadvantage of this approach is the large amount of
information that is lost as the performance on each criterion is
categorized, weighted in a single outcome measure, i.e., the probability
of selection. This limits the possibility to distinguish
between different interventions. The number of potential profiles
is especially limited if all investigated interventions are aimed at
the same disease and same age group as in our example.
Our study shows that there are some applications of the
equity–efficiency trade-off at the disposal of policymakers. These
applications are potentially promising, because they may lead to
better informed and more transparent reimbursement decisions.
Better information can result in a shift from intuition-based
policymaking to more evidence-based policymaking. Various
high-income health-care systems are presently shifting toward a
process of intervention assessment and appraisal. Typically, the
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK
has produced an article on social values. In general, governments
can only accomplish more of health goals if the consequences of
health policies for different goals are known [30].
Nevertheless, increased quantification of knowledge on the
impact of health interventions will reduce the autonomy of policymakers
to decide which reimbursement scheme is most attractive
and a priority. This also may result in reluctance from
policymakers toward such explicit applications of the equity–
efficiency trade-off. Therefore, it seems most realistic to use the
described incorporation of equitability approaches as a potential
transparent support of policy with regard to accounting for the
equity impact of health interventions.
Source of financial support: The Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization
funded the study. The funding was unrestricted and the organization had no
interference of any kind in the research or in the manuscript writing.