Next Article in Journal
Results and Validation of an Index to Measure Health State of Patients with Depression in Automated Healthcare Databases
Previous Article in Journal
Non-Profit Drug Research and Development: The Case Study of Genethon
 
 
Journal of Market Access & Health Policy (JMAHP) is published by MDPI from Volume 12 Issue 1 (2024). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Taylor & Francis.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Economic Evaluation: Efficiency or Fairness First

by
Jeff Richardson
1,* and
Michael Schlander
2,3
1
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
2
Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center(DKFZ) & University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
3
Institute for Innovation and Valuation in Health Care, Wiesbaden, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2019, 7(1), 1557981; https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981
Submission received: 29 November 2018 / Accepted: 6 December 2018 / Published: 20 December 2018

Abstract

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP’s) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD’s).
Keywords: economic evaluation; sharing; cost/QALY; ultra-rare diseases; social preferences; communitarianism economic evaluation; sharing; cost/QALY; ultra-rare diseases; social preferences; communitarianism

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Richardson, J.; Schlander, M. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Economic Evaluation: Efficiency or Fairness First. J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2019, 7, 1557981. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981

AMA Style

Richardson J, Schlander M. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Economic Evaluation: Efficiency or Fairness First. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy. 2019; 7(1):1557981. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Richardson, Jeff, and Michael Schlander. 2019. "Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Economic Evaluation: Efficiency or Fairness First" Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 7, no. 1: 1557981. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981

APA Style

Richardson, J., & Schlander, M. (2019). Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Economic Evaluation: Efficiency or Fairness First. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 7(1), 1557981. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop