Paul Mitchell’s journal round-up for 1st January 2018

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

Does the approach to economic evaluation in health care depend on culture, values and institutional context? European Journal of Health Economics [PubMedPublished 5th December 2017

In last week’s round-up we looked at a paper that attempted to develop guidance for costing across European economic evaluations, even when the guidelines across countries vary as to what should and should not be included in an economic evaluation. Why is it that there is such variation in health economic evaluation methods across countries? Why are economic outcomes like quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) standard practice in some countries yet frowned upon in others? This editorial argues that cultures, values and institutional context play a role in the economic evaluation methodologies applied across countries. It does so by comparing five large European countries in terms of 1. the organisation and governance of the agencies undertaking health technology assessments (HTAs) and economic evaluation, 2. the methods used for economic evaluation, and 3. the use of HTA and economic evaluation in decision making. The authors argue that due to differences in these areas across countries, it is difficult to see how a “one size fits all” economic evaluation framework can be implemented, when health care systems, their regulations and social values towards health care differ. An argument is presented that where greater social value is placed on horizontal equity (equal treatment of equals) over vertical equity (unequal treatment of unequals), the QALY outcome is more likely to be applied in such countries. They argue that of the five largest European countries, the German efficiency frontier model of economic analysis may offer the best off-the-shelf option for countries like the United States who also have similar qualms about the use of QALYs in decision making. However, it may be the case that current economic evaluations lack international application due to other reasons beyond those notable considerations raised in this paper.

Reconciling ethical and economic conceptions of value in health policy using the capabilities approach: a qualitative investigation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing. Social Science & Medicine [PubMed] [RePEcPublished 16th November 2017

The capability approach, initially developed by economist and philosopher Amartya Sen, provides an alternative evaluative framework to welfare economics, shifting the focus on individual welfare away from utility and preferences, towards a person’s freedom to do and be valuable things to their life. It has more recently been used as a critique of the current approach to health economic evaluations, specifically what aspects of quality of life are included in the economic outcome, where the current measurement tools used in the generation of QALYs have been argued to have too narrow a focus on health outcomes, with a number of capability measures now developed as alternatives. This study, on the other hand, applies the capability approach to tackle health technologies that pose difficult ethical challenges where standard clinical and economic outcomes used in cost-effectiveness analysis may be in conflict with social values. The authors propose why they think the evaluative framework of the capability approach may be advantageous in such areas, using non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), a screening test that analyses cell-free fetal DNA circulating in maternal blood in order to gain information about the fetal genotype, as a case study. The authors propose that adopting a capability evaluative framework in NIPT may account for the enhancement of valuable options available to prospective parents and families, as well as capabilities that may be diminished if NIPT was made routinely available, such as the option of refusing a test as an informed choice. A secondary analysis of qualitative data was conducted on women with experience of NIPT in Canada. Using a constructivist orientation to directed qualitative content analysis, interviews were analysed to see how NIPT related to a pre-existing list of ten Central Human Capabilities developed by philosopher Martha Nussbaum. From the analysis, they found eight of the ten Nussbaum capabilities emerge from the interviewees who were not directly asked to consider capability in the interview. As well as these eight (life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; control over one’s environment), a new capability emerged related to care-taking as a result of NIPT, both for potential children and also the impact on existing children. The next challenge for the authors will be trying to formulate their findings into a usable outcome measure for decision-making. However, the analysis undertaken here is a good example of how economists can attempt to tackle the assessment of ethically challenging technologies as a way of dealing with standard economic outcomes that might be considered counter-productive in such evaluations.

Quality of life in a broader perspective: does ASCOT reflect the capability approach? Quality of Life Research [PubMedPublished 14th December 2017

The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) is a measure developed specifically for the economic assessment of social care interventions in the UK. Although a number of versions of ASCOT have been developed, the most recent version of ASCOT has been argued to be a measure influenced by the capability approach, even though previous versions of the measure were not justified similarly, so it remains to be seen how influential the capability approach is in the composition of this outcome measure. This study attempts to add justification of linking the capability approach with the ASCOT by conducting a literature review on the capability approach to identify key issues of quality of life measurement and how ASCOT deals with these issues. The methods for conducting the literature review are not described in detail in this paper, but the authors state that three primary issues with quality of life measurement in the capability approach literature that emerge from their review are concerned with 1. the measurement of capability, 2. non-reliance on adaptive preferences, and 3. focus on a multidimensional evaluative space. The authors argue that capability measurement is tackled by ASCOT, through the use of “as I want” phraseology at the top level on the ASCOT dimensions. Adaptive preferences are argued to be tackled by the use of general population preferences of different states on ASCOT and the outcome addresses several dimensions of quality of life. I would argue that there is much more to measuring capability beyond these three areas identified by the authors. Although the authors rightly question if the “as I want” phraseology is adequate to measure capability in their conclusion, the other two criteria could equally justify most measures for generating QALYs, so the criteria they use to be a capability measure is set at a very low benchmark. I remain unconvinced about how much of a capability measure ASCOT actually is in practice.

Credits

 

Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 5th September 2016

Every Monday our authors provide a round-up of some of the most recently published peer reviewed articles from the field. We don’t cover everything, or even what’s most important – just a few papers that have interested the author. Visit our Resources page for links to more journals or follow the HealthEconBot. If you’d like to write one of our weekly journal round-ups, get in touch.

The effect of complementary private health insurance on the use of health care services. International Journal of Health Economics and Management Published 31st August 2016

Moral hazard is one of the key ideas taught to fledgling health economists, but having taken flight you don’t hear all that much about it. That’s because most of us live in Europe, enjoying our universal publicly funded health care systems. But I quite like papers that remind me that moral hazard is still a going concern and that my MSc was relevant. This paper looks at the impact of complementary private health insurance – that is, alongside a national health service. There aren’t so many studies of moral hazard in this setting. Private health insurance (let’s call it PHI) might decrease use of public health care (let’s call it NHS), but it might also increase pressure on the NHS by creating additional demand. For example, people might need a referral from an NHS GP in order to qualify for PHI coverage. This study uses cross-sectional questionnaire data from Denmark, collected from 5447 individuals for the purpose of this study. The questionnaire collected all sorts of data relating to health care use and sociodemographics. People who gave ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Other’ responses were dropped, meaning that only 4362 were analysed. 49% of the sample had PHI – the ‘treatment’ of interest. The authors use a bivariate probit model with propensity score matching to predict health care use. Furthermore, an instrumental variable is used to improve identification. Having PHI seems to increase use of services, with strong effects for prescription medicine, dentist visits and chiropractors. This suggests that PHI coverage may contribute to increasing national health care costs. There are some major limitations to this study, which the authors acknowledge. The response rate was 41%, and the sample wasn’t particularly representative. The one thing I can’t get my head around is the authors’ identification strategy. The instrumental variable chosen was whether or not an individual wears glasses, as in this case PHI is particularly favourable. Even controlling for the covariates used in this analysis, I cannot see (no pun intended) how this could be unrelated to health care use.

The value of disease prevention vs treatment. Journal of Health Economics Published 29th August 2016

The public’s view of pharma just keeps getting worse“, apparently. One probably-entirely-made-up-but-sort-of-reasonable-sounding thing I’ve heard Joe Public say in the past is that Pharma would like us all to remain sickly cash cows. New treatments = milk. Prevention is just… soya. That analogy made no sense, but there are also more reasoned arguments that we spend too much on treatment and too little on prevention. There are also numerous studies characterising people’s preferences regarding prevention and treatment under different conditions. This study builds on this background by developing a utility model of disease valuation in order to derive willingness-to-pay values for reductions in incidence (prevention), mortality (treatment) or deterioration in quality of life (palliative care). The basis for the model is 3 possible states – healthy, ill and dead – through which people can progress in only one direction (i.e. there is no cure). The ‘ill’ state relates to a specific disease and has a value somewhere between 1 (healthy) and 0 (dead). The authors use the model to determine – for example – how willingness to pay for improvement in the ‘ill’ state might be affected by the mortality rate. Two key implications of the model are that i) when the risk of dying from a disease is greater than the incidence rate, prevention is more valuable than treatment and ii) when the incidence rate is greater than the decline in quality of life, prevention is more valuable than palliative care. The model is also used to incorporate probability weighting to give a more realistic characterisation of people’s risk preferences. In most cases, the two previous findings will hold. An interesting finding of this part of the analysis is that it seems to partly explain people’s disproportionately strong preferences for treating more severe diseases. The model suggests that prevention is more valuable than treatment for most real-world situations, and so we’ve probably got the balance all wrong.

Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Quality of Life Research [PubMed] Published 23rd August 2016

There’s plenty of talk nowadays about the idea that QALYs don’t reflect the most important objects of value for particular groups of people, especially older people. Non-health improvements in quality of life might be more important. Whether we’re using EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3 or your personally preferred multi-attribute utility measure, the idea is that they’re measuring the same thing. But they’re not. They consistently give systematically different results. This study sought to find out if older people value quality of life attributes used in these measures differently to younger people. The authors elicit preferences for different domains using a web-based survey of two groups of 500 people: over 65s and 18-64 year olds. Individuals were presented with 12 descriptors from the EQ-5D, AQoL and ASCOT and asked to complete both a ranking and a best worst exercise. Socioeconomic data were also collected. The two cohorts ranked the domains differently, but perhaps not as differently as we might expect. ‘Independence’ was important to both groups, with 36% of over 65s and 20% of 18-64 year olds ranking it first. Physical mobility, mental health and pain also ranked highly for both groups. Older people ranked control, self-care and vision more highly than younger people, who in turn ranked safety, social relationships, dignity, sleep and hearing more highly. The results from the ranking exercise and the best worst exercise were similar. So, non-health attributes matter to everyone and older people’s preferences differ to younger people’s. But so what? We could probably find differences between a sample of men and a sample of women, or between an urban and a rural population. The question is: which differences matter? Studies like this are useful, but they can’t tell us how we ought to handle heterogeneous preferences.

From representing views to representativeness of views: Illustrating a new (Q2S) approach in the context of health care priority setting in nine European countries. Social Science & Medicine [PubMedPublished 22nd August 2016

Asking the public what they think; it’s a dangerous game (nb Brexit, Boaty McBoatface, Mrs Brown’s Boys). But there are good grounds for doing so when it comes to health care resource allocation. This paper comes from an ongoing research project that I’ve written about on a couple of occasions. A previous paper used Q methodology and identified 5 viewpoints regarding the fundamental basis for the allocation of resources in health care, titled: 1) ‘egalitarianism, entitlement and equality of access’, 2) ‘severity and the magnitude of health gains’, 3) ‘fair innings, young people and maximising health benefits’, 4) ‘the intrinsic value of life and healthy living’ and 5) ‘quality life is more important than simply staying alive’. This study developed a new methodology called Q2S, designed to extract features from the viewpoints elicited through the original Q study and create a survey to find out how these different viewpoints are represented in society. Data were collected from 39,560 respondents from 9 European countries. Participants were presented with a series of descriptions with which to identify agreement on a 7-point Likert scale from “very unlike my point of view” to “very much like my point of view”. 41% of respondents gave their highest score to a single viewpoint, while the rest tied across two or more viewpoints and were subsequently asked to identify which one would best reflect their view. 43% of respondents were allocated to Viewpoint 1. This viewpoint asserts that health care is a basic right, that treatment effectiveness is essentially irrelevant because all life has the same value, and that scarcity is not a concern. It was predominant in all 9 countries. Gulp! Next up with 17% was Viewpoint 2, which is a bit closer to health maximisation but with a preference for allocation to life-saving treatment and more severe health states. Viewpoint 3 was not popular, with only 4% of people identifying it as most like their point of view. The authors identify various associations between sociodemographic variables and likelihood of particular viewpoints. There’s a lot of food for thought in this paper. Where do you sit? My position changes depending on how revolutionary I’m feeling.

Photo credit: Antony Theobald (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)