IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i3p171-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Griffin

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • James Love-Koh

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Becky Pennington

    (Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Lesley Owen

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK)

Abstract

Introduction. We describe a simplified distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on aggregate data to estimate the health inequality impact of public health interventions. Methods. We extracted data on costs, health outcomes expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and target populations for interventions within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guidance published up to October 2016. Evidence on variation by age, gender, and index of multiple deprivation informed socioeconomic distributions of incremental QALYs, health opportunity costs, and the baseline distribution of health. Total population QALYs, summary measures of inequality, and a health equity impact plane show results by intervention and by guideline. A value for inequality aversion from a general population survey in England let us combine impacts on health inequality and total health into a single measure of intervention value. Results. Our estimates suggest that of 134 interventions considered by NICE, 70 (52%) reduce inequality and increase health, 21 (16%) involve a tradeoff between improving health and improving health inequality, and 43 (32%) reduce health and increase health inequality. Fully implemented, the potential impact of all recommendations was 23,336,181 additional QALYs for the population of England and Wales and a reduction of the gap in quality-adjusted life expectancy between the healthiest and least healthy from 13.78 to 13.34 QALYs. The combined value of the additional health and reduction in inequality was 28,723,776 QALYs. Discussion. Our analysis takes account of the fact that existing public health spending likely benefits the most disadvantaged. This simple method applied separately to economic evaluation produces evidence of intervention impacts on the distribution of health that is vital in determining value for money when health inequality reduction is a policy goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Griffin & James Love-Koh & Becky Pennington & Lesley Owen, 2019. "Evaluation of Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 171-182, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:171-182
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19829726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19829726
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19829726?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2015. "Distributional Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes – A Methodological Case Study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 742-754, June.
    2. Andrew McAuley & Cheryl Denny & Martin Taulbut & Rory Mitchell & Colin Fischbacher & Barbara Graham & Ian Grant & Paul O’Hagan & David McAllister & Gerry McCartney, 2016. "Informing Investment to Reduce Inequalities: A Modelling Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Richard Cookson & Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria, 2018. "E‐learning and health inequality aversion: A questionnaire experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1754-1771, November.
    4. Matthew Robson & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson & Aki Tsuchiya & Shehzad Ali, 2017. "Eliciting the Level of Health Inequality Aversion in England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(10), pages 1328-1334, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2021. "Taking a local government perspective for economic evaluation of a population-level programme to promote exercise," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 651-657.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Schokkaert & Benoît Tarroux, 2021. "Empirical research on ethical preferences: how popular is prioritarianism?," Working Papers 2104, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    3. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Matthew Robson & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson & Aki Tsuchiya & Shehzad Ali, 2017. "Eliciting the Level of Health Inequality Aversion in England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(10), pages 1328-1334, October.
    5. Hwa-Kyung Lim & Young-Ho Khang, 2019. "Quantifying the impact of reducing socioeconomic inequalities in modifiable risk factors on mortality and mortality inequalities in South Korea," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(4), pages 585-594, May.
    6. Hardardottir, Hjördis & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Wengström, Erik, 2019. "What Kind of Inequality Do You Prefer? Evaluating Measures of Income and Health Inequality Using Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2019:7, Lund University, Department of Economics, revised 31 May 2019.
    7. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    8. Fan Yang & Colin Angus & Ana Duarte & Duncan Gillespie & Simon Walker & Susan Griffin, 2020. "Impact of Socioeconomic Differences on Distributional Cost-effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 606-618, July.
    9. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    10. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Walli-Attaei, Marjan, 2020. "Inequality aversion in income, health, and income-related health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Richard Cookson & Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria, 2018. "E‐learning and health inequality aversion: A questionnaire experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1754-1771, November.
    13. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    14. Micaela Pinho & Anabela Botelho, 2018. "Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 503-513, August.
    15. James Love-Koh & Susan Griffin & Edward Kataika & Paul Revill & Sibusiso Sibandze & Simon Walker, 2019. "Incorporating concerns for equity into health resource allocation. A guide for practitioners," Working Papers 160cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    16. Costa-Font, J.; & Cowell, F.;, 2019. "Incorporating Inequality Aversion in Health-Care Priority Setting," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 19/04, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. Dukhanin, Vadim & Searle, Alexandra & Zwerling, Alice & Dowdy, David W. & Taylor, Holly A. & Merritt, Maria W., 2018. "Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 27-35.
    18. Miqdad Asaria, 2017. "Health care costs in the English NHS: reference tables for average annual NHS spend by age, sex and deprivation group," Working Papers 147cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    19. Asaria, Miqdad & Mazumdar, Sumit & Chowdhury, Samir & Mazumdar, Papiya & Mukhopadhyay, Abhiroop & Gupta, Indrani, 2019. "Socioeconomic inequality in life expectancy in India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100783, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Love-Koh, James & Pennington, Becky & Owen, Lesley & Taylor, Matthew & Griffin, Susan, 2020. "How health inequalities accumulate and combine to affect treatment value: A distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:171-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.