IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i5p606-618.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Socioeconomic Differences on Distributional Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fan Yang

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

  • Colin Angus

    (Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK)

  • Ana Duarte

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

  • Duncan Gillespie

    (Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK)

  • Simon Walker

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

  • Susan Griffin

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

Abstract

Public health decision makers value interventions for their effects on overall health and health inequality. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) incorporates health inequality concerns into economic evaluation by accounting for how parameters, such as effectiveness, differ across population groups. A good understanding of how and when accounting for socioeconomic differences between groups affects the assessment of intervention impacts on overall health and health inequality could inform decision makers where DCEA would add most value. We interrogated 2 DCEA models of smoking and alcohol policies using first national level and then local authority level information on various socioeconomic differences in health and intervention use. Through a series of scenario analyses, we explored the impact of altering these differences on the DCEA results. When all available evidence on socioeconomic differences was incorporated, provision of a smoking cessation service was estimated to increase overall health and increase health inequality, while the screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse was estimated to increase overall health and reduce inequality. Ignoring all or some socioeconomic differences resulted in minimal change to the estimated impact on overall health in both models; however, there were larger effects on the estimated impact on health inequality. Across the models, there were no clear patterns in how the extent and direction of socioeconomic differences in the inputs translated into the estimated impact on health inequality. Modifying use or coverage of either intervention so that each population group matched the highest level improved the impacts to a greater degree than modifying intervention effectiveness. When local level socioeconomic differences were considered, the magnitude of the impacts was altered; in some cases, the direction of impact on inequality was also altered.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:5:p:606-618
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20935883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20935883
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20935883?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. Cookson, Richard & Drummond, Mike & Weatherly, Helen, 2009. "Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions – reply to Richardson and Shiell," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 261-263, April.
    2. Pasquale Caponnetto & Davide Campagna & Fabio Cibella & Jaymin B Morjaria & Massimo Caruso & Cristina Russo & Riccardo Polosa, 2013. "EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as Tobacco Cigarettes Substitute: A Prospective 12-Month Randomized Control Design Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-12, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Cookson, Richard & Drummond, Mike & Weatherly, Helen, 2009. "Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 231-245, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. Tom L. Drake & Yoel Lubell & Shwe Sin Kyaw & Angela Devine & Myat Phone Kyaw & Nicholas P. J. Day & Frank M. Smithuis & Lisa J. White, 2017. "Geographic Resource Allocation Based on Cost Effectiveness: An Application to Malaria Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 299-306, June.
    4. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    5. Olanrewaju Medu & Adegboyega Lawal & Doug Coyle & Kevin Pottie, 2021. "Economic evaluation of HIV testing options for low-prevalence high-income countries: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Carlos Campillo-Artero & Jaume Puig-Junoy & Anthony J. Culyer, 2018. "Does MCDA Trump CEA?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 147-151, April.
    7. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.
    8. E. Wetering & N. Exel & J. Rose & R. Hoefman & W. Brouwer, 2016. "Are some QALYs more equal than others?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, March.
    9. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    10. Stéphane Verguet & Jane J. Kim & Dean T. Jamison, 2016. "Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(9), pages 913-923, September.
    11. 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.
    12. E. Wetering & N. Exel & J. Rose & R. Hoefman & W. Brouwer, 2016. "Are some QALYs more equal than others?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 117-127, March.
    13. Kinge, Jonas Minet & Vallejo-Torres, Laura & Morris, Stephen, 2015. "Income related inequalities in avoidable mortality in Norway: A population-based study using data from 1994–2011," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(7), pages 889-898.
    14. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    15. Anita Lal & Mohammad Siahpush & Marjory Moodie & Anna Peeters & Robert Carter, 2018. "Weighting Health Outcomes by Socioeconomic Position Using Stated Preferences," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 43-51, March.
    16. 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).
    17. Wouters, S. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Rohde, K.I.M. & Vromen, J.J. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2017. "Acceptable health and priority weighting: Discussing a reference-level approach using sufficientarian reasoning," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 158-167.
    18. Luyten, Jeroen & Kessels, Roselinde & Atkins, Katherine E. & Jit, Mark & van Hoek, Albert Jan, 2019. "Quantifying the public's view on social value judgments in vaccine decision-making: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 181-193.
    19. Ilias Goranitis & Joanna Coast & Ed Day & Alex Copello & Nick Freemantle & Emma Frew, 2017. "Maximizing Health or Sufficient Capability in Economic Evaluation? A Methodological Experiment of Treatment for Drug Addiction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 498-511, July.
    20. Laurence S. J. Roope & John Buckell & Frauke Becker & Paolo Candio & Mara Violato & Jody L. Sindelar & Adrian Barnett & Raymond Duch & Philip M. Clarke, 2020. "How Should a Safe and Effective COVID-19 Vaccine be Allocated? Health Economists Need to be Ready to Take the Baton," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 557-561, December.

    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:40:y:2020:i:5:p:606-618. 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.