Search

Objective: Empirical estimates of the impact of healthcare expenditure on health outcome measures may inform the cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) for guiding funding decisions. This study aims to systematically review studies that estimated this, summarize and compare the estimates by country income level., Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, York Research database, and [anonymized] for Reviews and Dissemination database from inception to 1 August 2023. For inclusion, a study had to be an original article, estimating the impact of healthcare expenditure on health outcome measures at a country level, and presented estimates, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or disability-adjusted life year (DALY)., Results: We included 18 studies with 385 estimates. The median (range) estimates were PPP$ 11,224 (PPP$ 223 - PPP$ 288,816) per QALY gained and PPP$ 5,963 (PPP$ 71 - PPP$ 165,629) per DALY averted. As ratios of Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPPC), these estimates were 0.376 (0.041-182.840) and 0.318 (0.004-37.315) times of GDPPC, respectively., Conclusions: The commonly used CET of GDPPC seems to be too high for all countries, but especially low-to-middle-income countries where the potential health losses from misallocation of the same money are greater., Registration: The review protocol was published and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020147276).

Background: There has been an increasing demand to reimburse high-cost medicines, through public health insurance schemes in Thailand., Methods: A mixed method approach was employed. First, a rapid review of select high-income countries was conducted, followed by expert consultations and an in-depth review of three countries: Australia, England and Republic of Korea to understand reimbursement mechanisms of high-cost medicines. In Thailand, current pathways for reimbursing high-cost medicines reviewed, the potential opportunity cost estimated, and stakeholder consultations were conducted to identify context specific considerations., Results: High-income countries reviewed have implemented a variety of pathways and mechanisms for reimbursing high-cost medicines under specific eligibility criteria, listing processes, varying cost-effectiveness thresholds and special funding arrangements. In Thailand, high-cost medicines that do not offer good value-for-money are excluded from the reimbursement process. A framework for reimbursing high-cost medicines that are not cost-effective at the current willingness-to-pay threshold was proposed for Thailand. Under this framework, specific criteria are proposed to determine their eligibility for reimbursement such life-saving nature, treatment of conditions with no alternative treatment options, and affordability., Conclusion: High-cost medicines may become eligible for reimbursement through alternative mechanisms based on specific criteria which depend on each context. The application of HTA methods and processes is important in guiding these decisions to support sustainable access to affordable healthcare in pursuit of Universal Health Coverage (UHC)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Oortwijn et al continue their guide to good practice in the use of deliberative processes in health technology assessment (HTA) based on a survey of international practice. This is useful, and I applaud their care in maintaining objectivity, especially regarding the treatment of moral and politically controversial issues, in reporting how jurisdictions have handled such matters in designing HTA procedures and in their execution. To their suggestions for future research, I add: the historical development of deliberation in healthcare decision-making and in other fields of public choice, with comparisons of methods, successes and failures; development of guidance on the design and use of deliberative processes that enhance decision-making when there is no consensus amongst the decision-makers; ways of identifying and managing context-free and context-sensitive evidence; and a review of high-level capacity building to raise awareness of HTA and the use of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) and deliberation amongst policy makers, especially in low and middle-income countries., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Objectives: Although many reviews of the literature on cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) exist, the availability of new studies and the absence of a fully comprehensive analysis warrant a new review. This study systematically reviews demand-side methods for estimating the societal monetary value of health gain., Methods: Several electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2019. To be included, a study had to be an original article in any language, with a clearly described method for estimating the societal monetary values of health gain and with all estimated values reported. Estimates were converted to US dollars ($), using purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates and the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (2019)., Results: We included 53 studies; 45 used direct approach and 8 used indirect approach. Median estimates from the direct approach were PPP$ 24 942 (range 554-1 301 912) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), which were typically 0.53 (range 0.02-24.08) GDP per capita. Median estimates using the indirect approach were PPP$ 310 051 (range 36 402-7 574 870) per QALY, which accounted for 7.87 (range 0.68-116.95) GDP per capita., Conclusions: Our review found that the societal values of health gain or CETs were less than GDP per capita. The great variety in methods and estimates suggests that a more standardized and internationally agreed methodology for estimating CET is warranted. Multiple CETs may have a role when QALYs are not equally valued from a societal perspective (eg, QALYs accruing to people near death compared with equivalent QALYs to others)., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Research and Development (R&D) in health and health care has several intriguing characteristics which, separately and in combination, have significant implications for the ways in which it is organised, funded and managed. We review the characteristics, some of which apply under most circumstances and others of which may be context-specific, explore their implications for the organisation and management of health-related R&D, and illustrate the main features from the UK experience in the 1990s.

Introduction: Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons ("excuses") that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings., Methods: There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%)., Results: The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a "price on life"., Conclusions: This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

This article considers 2 types of standard by which health technology assessment (HTA) studies should be judged: methodological and social. Methodological desiderata specify characteristics of a good quality analysis and should be met regardless of context. Transparency about an HTA study's perspective (eg, specifying whose costs and whose benefits from an intervention should be counted) is one such desideratum. Whether any particular perspective is the right one is, by contrast, contingent upon conditions in which the analysis is to be applied. A perspective ought always to be treated as context sensitive. Recently, it has been advocated that an HTA study's perspective should always be "societal" (ie, including consequences, good or bad, for anyone affected in any way by a technology's use). This article argues that this is a mistake, ethically attractive though it might appear., (Copyright 2021 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

This paper offers an approach to assessing quality of life, based on Sen's (1985) theory, which it uses to understand loss in quality of life due to mobility impairment. Specifically, it provides a novel theoretical analysis that is able to account for the possibility that some functionings may increase when a person's capabilities decrease, if substitution effects are large enough. We then develop new data consistent with our theoretical framework that permits comparison of quality of life between those with a disability (mobility impairment) and those without. Empirical results show that mobility impairment has widespread rather than concentrated impacts on capabilities and is associated with high psychological costs. We also find evidence that a small number of functionings are higher for those with a disability, as our theory allows. The paper concludes by discussing possible implications for policy and health assessment methods., (© 2020 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen (OJB) is much more important than it appears because, in the absence of any good general theory of "evidence-informed deliberative processes" (EDP) and limited evidence of how they might be shaped and work in institutionalising health technology assessment (HTA), the best approach seems to be to accumulate the experience of a variety of countries, preferably systematically, from which some general principles might subsequently be inferred. This comment reinforces their arguments and provides a further example.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. The work was funded by the Prince Mahidol Award Foundation, Thai Health Promotion Foundation, and International Decision Support Initiative. The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) is funded by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under a grant for senior research scholar (RTA5980011). HITAP’s International Unit is supported by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) , which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK’s Department for International Development, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

Abrishami, Oortwijn, and Hofman (AOH) attribute to me a position I do not hold and an argument I did not make. The purpose of this note is make clear what my position actually is and to clarify the main differences between health technology assessment (HTA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)., (© 2019 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

The World Health Organization (WHO) resolution calling on Member States to work towards achieving universal health coverage (UHC) has increased the need for prioritizing health spending. Such need will soon accelerate as low- and middle-income countries transition from external aid. Countries will have to make difficult decisions on how best to integrate and finance previously donor-funded technologies and health services into their UHC packages in ways that are equitable, and operationally and financially sustainable. The International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) is a global network of health, policy and economic expertise which supports countries in making better decisions about how best and how much to spend public money on healthcare. iDSI core partners include Center For Global Development, China National Health Development Research Center, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand / National Health Foundation, Imperial College London, Kenya Medical Research Institute, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. In May 2019, iDSI convened a roundtable entitled Why strengthening health systems to make better decisions is a Best Buy . The event brought together members of iDSI, development partners and other organizations working in the areas of evidence-informed priority-setting, resource allocation and purchasing. The roundtable participants identified key challenges and activities that could be undertaken by the broader health technology assessment (HTA) community to further country-led capacity building, as well to foster deeper collaboration between the community itself. HTA is a tool which can assist governments and development partners with evaluating alternative investment options in a defensible and accountable fashion. The definition and scope of HTA, and what it can achieve and support, can be presented more clearly and cohesively to stakeholders. Organizations engaging in HTA must develop deeper collaboration, and integrate existing collaborations, to ensure progress in developing HTA institutionalization globally is well organized and sustainable., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2019 O'Brien N et al.)

Objectives: Transferability of economic evaluations to low- and middle-income countries through adaptation of models is important; however, several methodological and practical challenges remain. Given its significant costs and the quality-of-life burden to patients, adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer was identified as a priority intervention by the South African National Department of Health. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens (taxanes) compared with standard (non-taxane) treatments., Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken based on a UK 6-health-state Markov model adapted for South Africa using the Mullins checklist. The analysis assumed a 35-year time horizon. The model was populated with clinical effectiveness data (hazard ratios, recurrence rates, and adverse events) using direct comparisons from clinical trials. Resource use patterns and unit costs for estimating cost parameters (drugs, diagnostics, consumables, personnel) were obtained from South Africa. Uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses., Results: The incremental cost per patient for the docetaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was R6774. The incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.24, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R28430 per QALY. The cost of the paclitaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was estimated as -R578 and -R1512, producing an additional 0.03 and 0.025 QALYs, based on 2 trials. Paclitaxel, therefore, appears to be a dominant intervention. The base case results were robust to all sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Based on the adapted model, docetaxel and paclitaxel are predicted to be cost-effective as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer in South Africa., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is an unresolved issue as to whether cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the preferable analytical toolkit for use in health technology assessment (HTA). The distinction between the two and an expressed preference for CEA go back at least to 1980 in the USA and, most recently, a Harvard-based group has been reappraising the case for CBA., Objectives: This article seeks to answer the question: would the use of cost-benefit analysis rather than the more usual cost-effectiveness analysis be an improvement, specifically in appraising health and health-related investments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) as they transition to Universal Health Coverage?., Methods/results: A selective literature review charts the welfare economics (welfarism and extra-welfarism) roots of both approaches. The principal distinguishing feature of the two is the monetary valuation of health outcomes under CBA compared with the use of health constructs such as the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) or Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) under CEA. The former enables direct comparison of the outcomes of health investments with the monetized outcomes of other investments, while the CEA approach facilitates direct comparisons with other health investments. Seven challenges in using CBA in developing countries arise, including ethical issues in outcome valuation, practical challenges in the acquisition of data, intrinsic bias in data on values, and some of the practical issues of implementation for either CBA or CEA., Conclusions: We conclude with a list of nine issues that both CBA and CEA need to settle if they are to be useful in LMICs. For the immediate future we judge CBA to be the less practicable., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This report provides recommendations for budget holders and decision makers in high-, middle, and low-income countries requiring economic analyses of new vaccination programs to allocate scarce resources given budget constraints. ISPOR's Economic Evaluation of Vaccines Designed to Prevent Infectious Disease: Good Practices Task Force wrote guidelines for three analytic methods and solicited comments on them from external reviewers. Cost-effectiveness analyses use decision-analytic models to estimate cumulative changes in resource use, costs, and changes in quality- or disability-adjusted life-years attributable to changes in disease outcomes. Constrained optimization modeling uses a mathematical objective function to be optimized (e.g. disease cases avoided) for a target population for a set of interventions including vaccination programs within established constraints. Fiscal health modeling estimates changes in net present value of government revenues and expenditures attributable to changes in disease outcomes. The task force recommends that those designing economic analyses for new vaccination programs take into account the decision maker's policy objectives and country-specific decision context when estimating: uptake rate in the target population; vaccination program's impact on disease cases in the population over time using a dynamic transmission epidemiologic model; vaccination program implementation and operating costs; and the changes in costs and health outcomes of the target disease(s). The three approaches to economic analysis are complementary and can be used alone or together to estimate a vaccination program's economic value for national, regional, or subregional decision makers in high-, middle-, and low-income countries., (Copyright © 2018 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study is an attempt to demystify and clarify the idea of cost in health economics and health technology assessment (HTA)., Methods: Its method draws on standard concepts in economics. Cost is a more elusive concept than is commonly thought and can be particularly elusive in multidisciplinary territory like HTA., Results: The article explains that cost is more completely defined as opportunity cost, why cost is necessarily associated with a decision, and that it will always vary according to the context of that decision: whether choice is about inputs or outputs, what the alternatives are, the timing of the consequences of the decision, the nature of the commitment to which a decision maker is committed, who the decision maker is, and the constraints and discretion limiting or liberating the decision maker. Distinctions between short and long runs and between fixed and variable inputs are matters of choice, not technology, and are similarly context-dependent. Harms or negative consequences are, in general, not costs. Whether so-called "clinically unrelated" future costs and benefits should be counted in current decisions again depends on context., Conclusions: The costs of entire health programs are context-dependent, relating to planned rates of activity, volumes, and timings. The implications for the methods of HTA are different in the contexts of low- and middle-income countries compared with high-income countries, and further differ contextually according to the budget constraints (fixed or variable) facing decision makers.

With aid budgets shrinking in richer countries and more money for healthcare becoming available from domestic sources in poorer ones, the rhetoric of value for money or improved efficiency of aid spending is increasing. Taking healthcare as one example, we discuss the need for and potential benefits of (and obstacles to) the establishment of a national institute for aid effectiveness. In the case of the UK, such an institute would help improve development spending decisions made by DFID, the country's aid agency, as well as by the various multilaterals, such as the Global Fund, through which British aid monies is channelled. It could and should also help countries becoming increasingly independent from aid build their own capacity to make sure their own resources go further in terms of health outcomes and more equitable distribution. Such an undertaking will not be easy given deep suspicion amongst development experts towards economists and arguments for improving efficiency. We argue that it is exactly because needs matter that those who make spending decisions must consider the needs not being met when a priority requires that finite resources are diverted elsewhere. These chosen unmet needs are the true costs; they are lost health. They must be considered, and should be minimised and must therefore be measured. Such exposition of the trade-offs of competing investment options can help inform an array of old and newer development tools, from strategic purchasing and pricing negotiations for healthcare products to performance based contracts and innovative financing tools for programmatic interventions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can help countries attain and sustain universal health coverage (UHC), as long as it is context-specific and considered within deliberative processes at the country level. Institutionalising robust deliberative processes requires significant time and resources, however, and countries often begin by demanding evidence (including local CEA evidence as well as evidence about local values), whilst striving to strengthen the governance structures and technical capacities with which to generate, consider and act on such evidence. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such capacities could be developed initially around a small technical unit in the health ministry or health insurer. The role of networks, development partners, and global norm setting organisations is crucial in supporting the necessary capacities., (© 2017 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Background: Policymakers in high-, low-, and middle-income countries alike face challenging choices about resource allocation in health. Economic evaluation can be useful in providing decision makers with the best evidence of the anticipated benefits of new investments, as well as their expected opportunity costs-the benefits forgone of the options not chosen. To guide the decisions of health systems effectively, it is important that the methods of economic evaluation are founded on clear principles, are applied systematically, and are appropriate to the decision problems they seek to inform., Methods: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of economic evaluations of health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), commissioned a "reference case" through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) to guide future evaluations, and improve both the consistency and usefulness to decision makers., Results: The iDSI Reference Case draws on previous insights from the World Health Organization, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Comprising 11 key principles, each accompanied by methodological specifications and reporting standards, the iDSI Reference Case also serves as a means of identifying priorities for methods research, and can be used as a framework for capacity building and technical assistance in LMICs., Conclusions: The iDSI Reference Case is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it, and should not be followed slavishly without regard to context, culture, or history. This article presents the iDSI Reference Case and discusses the rationale, approach, components, and application in LMICs., (Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is misunderstanding about both the meaning and the role of cost-effectiveness thresholds in policy decision making. This article dissects the main issues by use of a bookshelf metaphor. Its main conclusions are as follows: it must be possible to compare interventions in terms of their impact on a common measure of health; mere effectiveness is not a persuasive case for inclusion in public insurance plans; public health advocates need to address issues of relative effectiveness; a 'first best' benchmark or threshold ratio of health gain to expenditure identifies the least effective intervention that should be included in a public insurance plan; the reciprocal of this ratio - the 'first best' cost-effectiveness threshold - will rise or fall as the health budget rises or falls (ceteris paribus); setting thresholds too high or too low costs lives; failure to set any cost-effectiveness threshold at all also involves avertable deaths and morbidity; the threshold cannot be set independently of the health budget; the threshold can be approached from either the demand side or the supply side - the two are equivalent only in a health-maximising equilibrium; the supply-side approach generates an estimate of a 'second best' cost-effectiveness threshold that is higher than the 'first best'; the second best threshold is the one generally to be preferred in decisions about adding or subtracting interventions in an established public insurance package; multiple thresholds are implied by systems having distinct and separable health budgets; disinvestment involves eliminating effective technologies from the insured bundle; differential weighting of beneficiaries' health gains may affect the threshold; anonymity and identity are factors that may affect the interpretation of the threshold; the true opportunity cost of health care in a community, where the effectiveness of interventions is determined by their impact on health, is not to be measured in money - but in health itself.

Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only "in the light of" evidence but also "on the basis of" budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA reports fail to develop ethical arguments and generally do not even mention ethical issues. This comment argues that some of these defects are more apparent than real and are not inherent in HTA - as distinct from being common characteristics found in poorly conducted HTAs. More generally, HTA does not need "extension" since (1) ethical issues are already embedded in HTA processes, not least in their scoping phases, and (2) HTA processes are already sufficiently flexible to accommodate evidence about a wide range of factors, and will not need fundamental change in order to accommodate the new forms of decision-relevant evidence about distributional impact and financial protection that are now starting to emerge. HTA and related techniques are there to support decision-makers who have authority to make decisions. Analysts like us are there to support and advise them (and not to assume the responsibilities for which they, and not we, are accountable). The required quality in HTA then becomes its effectiveness as a means of addressing the issues of concern to decision-makers. What is also required is adherence by competent analysts to a standard template of good analytical practice. The competencies include not merely those of the usual disciplines (particularly biostatistics, cognitive psychology, health economics, epidemiology, and ethics) but also the imaginative and interpersonal skills for exploring the "real" question behind the decision-maker's brief (actual or postulated) and eliciting the social values that necessarily pervade the entire analysis. The product of such exploration defines the authoritative scope of an HTA., (© 2016 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences.)

Governments in low- and middle-income countries are legitimizing the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC), following a United Nation's resolution on UHC in 2012 and its reinforcement in the sustainable development goals set in 2015. UHC will differ in each country depending on country contexts and needs, as well as demand and supply in health care. Therefore, fundamental issues such as objectives, users and cost-effectiveness of UHC have been raised by policy-makers and stakeholders. While priority-setting is done on a daily basis by health authorities - implicitly or explicitly - it has not been made clear how priority-setting for UHC should be conducted. We provide justification for explicit health priority-setting and guidance to countries on how to set priorities for UHC.

Canadian and US health systems have often been characterized as having vastly different approaches to the financing and delivery of healthcare, with Canada portrayed as more reliant on rationing based on costs. In this article, we examine the similarities and differences between the two countries, the evolution and current role of health economic evaluation, and the roles played by health economists. We suggest both countries have similarly used economic evaluation to a limited extent for drug and immunization decisions, with variability in use more of a reflection of the incompleteness of both systems and their inherent institutional barriers rather than political ideology.

Organisations across diverse health care systems making decisions about the funding of new medical technologies face extensive stakeholder and political pressures. As a consequence, there is quite understandable pressure to take account of other attributes of benefit and to fund technologies, even when the opportunity costs are likely exceed the benefits they offer. Recent evidence suggests that NICE technology appraisal is already approving drugs where more health is likely to be lost than gained. Also, NICE recently proposed increasing the upper bound of the cost-effectiveness threshold to reflect other attributes of benefit but without a proper assessment of the type of benefits that are expected to be displaced. It appears that NICE has taken a direction of travel, which means that more harm than good is being, and will continue to be, done, but it is unidentified NHS patients who bear the real opportunity costs., (Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: There is widespread commitment--at least in principle--to "evidence-informed" clinical practice and policy development in health care. The intention is that only "appropriate" care ought to be delivered at public expense. Although the rationale for an appropriateness agenda is widely endorsed, and methods have been proposed for addressing it, few published studies exist of contemporary policy initiatives which have actually led to successful disinvestment. Our objective was to explore whether the direct involvement of policy stakeholders could advance appropriateness and disinvestment., Methods: Several collaborative engagements with policy stakeholders were undertaken to adapt and combine conceptual and empirical material related to appropriateness and disinvestment from the literature to create tools and processes for use in Canada and the province of Ontario in particular., Results: By combining inputs from the literature with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, a definition of appropriateness was developed and, importantly, endorsed by all the provincial and territorial ministers of health in Canada. Second, a reassessment framework was successfully implemented for identifying priorities for selective disinvestment., Conclusions: When scientific evidence was combined with colloquial evidence from policy stakeholders, progress was made on the design and successful implementation of policies for appropriateness and disinvestment.

The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently proposed amendments to its methods for the appraisal of health technologies. Previous amendments in 2009 and 2011 placed a greater value on the health of patients at the "end of life" and in cases where "treatment effects are both substantial in restoring health and sustained over a very long period". Drawing lessons from these previous amendments, we critically appraise NICE's proposals. The proposals repeal "end of life" considerations but add consideration of the "proportional" and "absolute" quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss from illness. NICE's cost-effectiveness threshold may increase from £20,000 to £50,000 per QALY on the basis of these and four other considerations: the "certainty of the ICER [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio]"; whether health-related quality of life is "inadequately captured"; the "innovative nature" of the technology; and "non-health objectives of the NHS". We demonstrate that NICE's previous amendments are flawed; they contain logical inconsistencies which can result in different values being placed on health gains for identical patients, and they do not apply value weights to patients bearing the opportunity cost of NICE's recommendations. The proposals retain both flaws and are also poorly justified. Applying value weights to patients bearing the opportunity cost would lower NICE's threshold, in some cases to below £20,000 per QALY. Furthermore, this baseline threshold is higher than current estimates of the opportunity cost. NICE's proposed threshold range is too high, for empirical and methodological reasons. NICE's proposals will harm the health of unidentifiable patients, whilst privileging the identifiable beneficiaries of new health technologies.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) routinely publishes details of the evidence and reasoning underpinning its recommendations, including its social value judgements (SVJs). To date, however, NICE's SVJs relating to equity in the distribution of health and health care have been less specific and systematic than those relating to cost-effectiveness in the pursuit of improved total population health. NICE takes a pragmatic, case-based approach to developing its principles of SVJ, drawing on the cumulative experience of its advisory bodies in making decisions that command respect among its broad range of stakeholders. This paper aims to describe the SVJs about equity in health and health care that NICE has hitherto used to guide its decision making. To do this, we review both the general SVJs reported in NICE guidance on methodology and the case-specific SVJs reported in NICE guidance about particular health care technologies and public health interventions.

Despite the inclusion of equity in the design of many health care systems, pragmatic tools for considering equity systematically, alongside the efficiency categories of cost-effectiveness in health technology assessment (HTA), remain underdeveloped. This article develops a framework to help decision makers supplement the standard efficiency criteria of HTA and avoid building inequities, explicit or implicit, into their methods. The framework is intended as a first step toward creating a checklist for alerting decision makers to a wide range of equity considerations for HTA. This framework is intended be used as part of the process through which advisory bodies receive their terms of reference; scope the agenda prior to the selection of a candidate intervention and its comparators for HTA; prepare background briefing for decision makers; and help to structure the discussion and composition of professional and lay advisory groups during the assessment process. The framework is offered as only a beginning of an ongoing process of deliberation and consultation, through which the matters covered can be expected to become more comprehensive and the record of past decisions and their contexts in any jurisdiction adopting the tool can serve to guide subsequent evidence gathering and decisions. In these ways, it may be hoped that equity will be more systematically and fully considered and implemented in both the procedures and decisions of HTA.

In this paper, we take a bibliometric tour of the last forty years of health economics using bibliographic "metadata" from EconLit supplemented by citation data from Google Scholar and our own topical classifications. We report the growth of health economics (we find 33,000 publications since 1969-12,000 more than in the economics of education) and list the 300 most-cited publications broken down by topic. We report the changing topical and geographic focus of health economics (the topics 'Determinants of health and ill-health' and 'Health statistics and econometrics' both show an upward trend, and the field has expanded appreciably into the developing world). We also compare authors, countries, institutions and journals in terms of the volume of publications and their influence as measured through various citation-based indices (Grossman, the US, Harvard and the JHE emerge close to or at the top on a variety of measures)., (Copyright © 2012 World Bank. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)