Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:44:23.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Equity–efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Alan H. Williams
Affiliation:
University of York
Richard A. Cookson
Affiliation:
University of York and University of East Anglia

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) currently focuses on efficiency, rather than equity, on the basis that its primary objective is to maximize population health. Yet a strict cost-effectiveness approach sometimes conflicts with important equity concerns, such as the reduction of socioeconomic health inequalities. Managing such equity–efficiency trade-offs on the basis of intuition is unsatisfactory in a democracy, as it arouses suspicions of special pleading and favoritism toward vested interests. Over the next few decades, therefore, decision making may progress through up to three further stages of development observed historically in other areas of resource allocation. Stage two involves case law, limited to principles distilled from precedent. Stage three involves codification, seeking to generalize these principles without specifying their relative weights. Finally, at stage four, quantitative trade-offs are incorporated into a formula. At stage four, deliberation centers on adjustments to the formula, which would then be applied impartially, transparently, and fair-mindedly to all future decisions. Methods already exist for valuing equity–efficiency trade-offs, based on established methodological principles for valuing trade-offs between different dimensions of health. Early findings indicate that the general public thinks that social class inequalities are more inequitable than those by smoking status, with inequalities between the sexes somewhere in between. Relative weights can be calculated from these data, although the data are not yet comprehensive enough to do this credibly for current policy purposes. In the mean time, the equity–efficiency trade-offs suggested by current decisions can be estimated using standard cost-effectiveness analysis. This is because every departure from a strict cost-effectiveness approach has an opportunity cost. The size of that opportunity cost is a test of how much weight a particular equity concern is deemed to merit.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abasolo I, Tsuchiya A. 2004 Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: An example from inequalities in health. J Health Econ. 23: 313329.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security. 1976. Sharing resources for health in England. Report of the Resource Allocation Working Party. London: HMSO;
Gutman A Thompson D. 2004 Deliberative democracy beyond process. In: Farrelly C., ed. Contemporary political theory: A reader. London: Sage Publications; 232241.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2005. Consultation document on social value judgements. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence;
Nord E. 2001 The desirability of a condition versus the well being and worth of a person. Health Econ. 10: 579581.Google Scholar
Sen A. 2002 Why health equity? Health Econ. 11: 659666.Google Scholar
Shaw R, Dolan P, Tsuchiya A, et al. 2001. Development of a questionnaire to elicit people's preferences regarding health inequalities. Occasional Paper. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York;
Williams A. 1985 Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 291: 326329.Google Scholar
Williams A. 1997 Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 6: 117132.Google Scholar
Williams A. 2001 The ‘fair innings’ argument deserves a fairer hearing! Comments by Alan Williams on Nord and Johannesson. Health Econ. 10: 583585.Google Scholar
Williams A. 2003 Comment on Amartya Sen's “Why health equity”. Health Econ. 12: 6566.Google Scholar
Williams A. 2004. What could be NICER than NICE? Office for Health Economics Annual Lecture 2004. London: Office for Health Economics;
Williams A. 2005 Thinking about equity in health care. J Nurs Manag 13: 397402.Google Scholar
Williams A. Discovering the QALY: Or how Rachel Rosser changed my life. In: Oliver A, ed. 2005. Personal histories in health research. London: Nuffield Trust; 2005. Available at: http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications/detail.asp?id=0. Accessed September 9
Williams A., Cookson R. 2000: Equity in health. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, eds. Handbook of health economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 18631910.
Williams A, Tsuchiya A., Dolan P. 2004: Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health. In: Smith PC, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, eds. Health policy and economics: Opportunities and challenges. New York: McGraw Hill; 6487.