Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Aug 20:16:581-596.
doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S471827. eCollection 2024.

Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review

Affiliations
Review

Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review

Jeffrey M Muir et al. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. .

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; health equity; health technology assessment; umbrella review; value elements.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JMM, AR and GS are employees of Cytel, Inc. IOS is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The authors declare no other competing interests in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The “Value Puzzle” illustrates the existing aspects of traditional cost-effectiveness analyses (clinical efficacy, economic value, disease modifiers and unmet treatment needs) but also highlights the missing aspects of the current system, of which health equity is a key. How to best incorporate concepts of health equity into CEA remains a challenge for HTA agencies and decision makers. Reprinted from Muir JM, Radhakrishnan A, Freitag A, Ozer Stillman I, Sarri G. Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1197259. Creative Commons.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Health equity, health equality and health disparity are related but distinct concepts for decision makers when considering new health technologies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
PRISMA diagram detailing literature search results and subsequent review process.

References

    1. Lakdawalla DN, Doshi JA, Garrison LP Jr, et al. Defining elements of value in health care-a health economics approach: an ISPOR special task force report [3]. Value Health. 2018;21(2):131–139. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Muir JM, Radhakrishnan A, Freitag A, Ozer Stillman I, Sarri G. Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1197259. doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1197259 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cookson R, Mirelman AJ, Griffin S, et al. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to address health equity concerns. Value Health. 2017;20(2):206–212. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Johri M, Norheim OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):125.32. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000050 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lal A, Moodie M, Peeters A, Carter R. Inclusion of equity in economic analyses of public health policies: systematic review and future directions. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018;42(2):207–213. doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12709 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources