Why equal treatment is not always equitable: the impact of existing ethnic health inequalities in cost-effectiveness modeling

Population Health Metrics

Ricci Harris¹  Giorgi Kvizhinadze¹  Tony Blakely¹  Melissa McLeod¹ 

[1] Department of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, PO Box 7343 23 Mein Street, Newtown Wellington, New Zealand

关键词: Ethnicity;    New Zealand;    Māori;    Equity;    Cost effectiveness;    Heterogeneity;   

Others  :  802301
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-7954-12-15

 received in 2013-12-04, accepted in 2014-05-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

A critical first step toward incorporating equity into cost-effectiveness analyses is to appropriately model interventions by population subgroups. In this paper we use a standardized treatment intervention to examine the impact of using ethnic-specific (Māori and non-Māori) data in cost-utility analyses for three cancers.

Methods

We estimate gains in health-adjusted life years (HALYs) for a simple intervention (20% reduction in excess cancer mortality) for lung, female breast, and colon cancers, using Markov modeling. Base models include ethnic-specific cancer incidence with other parameters either turned off or set to non-Māori levels for both groups. Subsequent models add ethnic-specific cancer survival, morbidity, and life expectancy. Costs include intervention and downstream health system costs.

Results

For the three cancers, including existing inequalities in background parameters (population mortality and comorbidities) for Māori attributes less value to a year of life saved compared to non-Māori and lowers the relative health gains for Māori. In contrast, ethnic inequalities in cancer parameters have less predictable effects. Despite Māori having higher excess mortality from all three cancers, modeled health gains for Māori were less from the lung cancer intervention than for non-Māori but higher for the breast and colon interventions.

Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness modeling is a useful tool in the prioritization of health services. But there are important (and sometimes counterintuitive) implications of including ethnic-specific background and disease parameters. In order to avoid perpetuating existing ethnic inequalities in health, such analyses should be undertaken with care.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 McLeod et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A: QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005, 14:197-208.
• [2]Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Melnikow J: Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio-demographic group? Health Econ 2007, 16:319-325.
• [3]Nord E, Richardson J, Street A, Kuhse H, Singer P: Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc Sci Med 1995, 41:1429-1437.
• [4]Bleichrodt H, Diecidue E, Quiggin J: Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. J Health Econ 2004, 23:157-171.
• [5]Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, Menzel P, Ubel P: Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999, 8:25-39.
• [6]Williams A: Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ 1997, 6:117-132.
• [7]Johri M, Norheim OF: Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012, 28:125-132.
• [8]New Zealand Medical Association: Health equity position statement. N Z Med J 2011, 124:10-86.
• [9]CSDH: Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008:2008.
• [10]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: The Institute; 2008.
• [11]Blakely T, Shaw C, Atkinson J, Cunningham R, Sarfati D: Social inequalities or inequities in cancer incidence? Repeated census-cancer cohort studies, New Zealand 1981–1986 to 2001–2004. Cancer Causes Control 2011, 22:1307-1318.
• [12]Soeberg M, Blakely T, Sarfati D, Tobias M, Costilla R, Carter K, Atkinson J: CancerTrends: Trends in Cancer Survival by Ethnic and Socioeconomic Group, New Zealand 1991–2004. Wellington: University of Otago and Ministry of Health; 2012.
• [13]Tobias M, Blakely T, Matheson D, Rasanathan K, Atkinson J: Changing trends in indigenous inequalities in mortality: lessons from New Zealand. Int J Epidemiol 2009, 38:1711-1722.
• [14]Blakely T, Shaw C, Atkinson J, Tobias M, Bastiampillai N, Sloane K, Sarfati D, Cunningham R: CancerTrends: Trends in Cancer Incidence by Ethnic and Socioeconomic Group, New Zealand 1981–2004. Wellington: University of Otago and Ministry of Health; 2010.
• [15]Blakely T, Tobias M, Atkinson J, Yeh L-C, Huang K: Tracking Disparity: Trends in Ethnic and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mortality, 1981–2004. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2007.
• [16]Blakely T, Foster R, Wilson N, BODE3 team: Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness (BODE3) Study Protocol. Wellington: University of Otago; 2012.
• [17]Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A, Begum N, Shah R, Karyana M, Kosen S, Farje MR, Moncada G, Dutta A, Sazawal S, Dyer A, Seiler J, Aboyans V, Baker L, Baxter A, Benjamin EJ, Bhalla K, Bin Abdulhak A, Blyth F, Bourne R, Braithwaite T, Brooks P, Brugha TS, Bryan-Hancock C, Buchbinder R, Burney P, et al.: Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380:2129-2143.
• [18]Costilla R, Atkinson J, Blakely T: Incorporating Ethnic and Deprivation Variation to Cancer Incidence Estimates over 2006–2026 for ABC-CBA. Wellington: University of Otago; 2011. [Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme, Technical Report No.5]
• [19]Sarfati D, Blakely T, Pearce N: Measuring cancer survival in populations: relative survival vs cancer-specific survival. Int J Epidemiol 2010, 39:589-610.
• [20]Dickman P, Sloggett A, Hills M, Hakulinen T: Regression models for relative survival. Stat Med 2004, 23:51-64.
• [21]Blakely T, Costilla R, Soeberg M: Cancer Excess Mortality Rates Over 2006–2026 for ABC-CBA. Wellington: University of Otago; 2012. [Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme, Technical Report No. 10]
• [22]Ministry of Health: Health Loss in New Zealand: A report from the New Zealand Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study, 2006–2016. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2013.
• [23]Liu S, Cipriano LE, Holodniy M, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD: Cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-factor guided and birth-cohort screening for chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States. PLoS One 2013, 8(3):e58975.
• [24]Theuer CP, Taylor TH, Brewster WR, Anton-Culver H: Gender and race/ethnicity affect the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Med Assoc 2006, 98:51-57.
• [25]Banham D, Lynch J, Karnon J: An equity-effectiveness framework linking health programs and healthy life expectancy. Aust J Prim Health 2011, 17:309-319. doi: 10.1071/PY11034
• [26]Paulden M, Culyer AJ: Does Cost-effectiveness Analysis Discriminate Against Patients with Short Life Expectancy? Matters of Logic and Matters of Context. York: University of York; 2010. [CHE Research Paper 55]
• [27]Harris J: It’s not NICE to discriminate. J Med Ethics 2005, 31:373-375.
• [28]Holtgrave DR: HIV prevention, cost-utility analysis, and race/ethnicity: Methodological considerations and recommendations. Med Decis Mak 2004, 24:181-191.