Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 155–171 | Cite as

Explicit Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Health Care: A Kaleidoscope

  • Jeroen LuytenEmail author
  • Yvonne Denier
Article

Abstract

Although the principles of cost-effectiveness analysis have been adopted by health systems worldwide, a large majority of countries remain reluctant to specify explicit threshold values for cost-effectiveness. Nonetheless, by aiming to benchmark what counts as a reasonable ‘price’ for health gains, the threshold value is a linchpin in the framework of health technology assessment, albeit also a controversial one. The desirability of thresholds depends largely on three claims: their intention to make resource allocation more efficient, their aspiration to make decision-making more transparent and their objective to make healthcare systems more sustainable. In this paper, we draw from various disciplines such as health economics but also psychology, anthropology, sociology, political sciences and ethics to discuss the many facets of these three values, related to the threshold debate. We discuss issues of allocative efficiency, fair decision-making, realpolitik, taboos, institutional justice and the rule of rescue. Based upon these considerations, which together substantiate the precautionary principle, we conclude that the case against thresholds is stronger than the case in favor and that most countries are right to be reluctant to use explicit threshold values.

Keywords

Thresholds Value of health Resource allocation Cost-effectiveness Ethics Health care 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the Annual Conference of the European Association of Centers for Medical Ethics (EACME) in Leuven, September 2016, at the international symposium on ‘Violence of Money’ organized by the Institute of Philosophy (University of Leuven) in January 2018, at the international workshop on ‘Ethics and Economics of Health Care’ organized by Tilburg University in March 2018 and at the international Intensive Course on ‘Justice and Priority Setting in Health Care’ in March 2018. We are grateful to all the participants of these meeting, for their inspiring comments on earlier thoughts. Special thanks goes to: Arnold Burms, Roger Burggraeve, Herman De Dijn, Bart Engelen, Dan Hausman, Erik Schokkaert, Paul Schotsmans, Ruud Termeulen, Antoon Vandevelde and Marcel Verweij. Each of them have, in own and various ways, inspired us to tackle this issue from a multidimensional kaleidoscope perspective and convinced us of the significance of doing it this way.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Afzali, H. H. A., Karnon, J., & Sculpher, M. (2016). Should the lambda (λ) remain silent? PharmacoEconomics, 34, 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertram, M. Y., Lauer, J. A., De Joncheere, K., Edejer, T., Hutubessy, R., Kieny, M. P., et al. (2016). Cost-effectiveness thresholds: Pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94(12), 925–930.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch, S., & Gafni, A. (2006). Information created to evade reality (ICER): Things we should not look to for answers. Pharmacoeconomics, 11, 1121–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch, S., & Gafni, A. (2015). On the margins of health economics: A response to ‘resolving NICE’s nasty dilemma. Health Economics, Policy & Law, 10, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burggraeve, R. (1995). The ethical meaning of money in the thought of Emmanuel Levinas. Ethical Perspectives, 2(2), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burggraeve, R. (2015). Ethics as crisis: Levinas’ contribution to a humane society. In R. Serpytyte (Ed.), Emmanuel Levinas: A radical thinker in the time of crisis (pp. 9–26). Vilnius: Vilnius University.Google Scholar
  8. Callahan, D. (1991a). Ethics and priority setting in oregon. Health Affairs, 10(2), 78–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Callahan, D. (1991b). The oregon initiative: Ethics and priority setting. Health Matrix, 1(2), 157–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., et al. (2015). Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess, 19(14), 1–503. v–vi.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Clement, F. M., Harris, A., Li, J. J., Yong, K., Lee, K. M., & Manns, B. J. (2009). Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA, 302(13), 1437–1443.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, I. G., Daniels, N., & Eyal, N. (2015). Identified versus statistical lives. An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cookson, R., McDaid, D., & Maynard, A. (2001). Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: Is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ, 323, 5–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creadon, M. (1997). The ocean denied. Time, 149, 3.Google Scholar
  15. Daniels, N. (1996). Justice and justification. Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniels, N. (1999). Enabling democratic deliberation: How managed care organisations ought to make decisions about coverage for new technologies. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 198–210). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Daniels, N. (2001). Justice, health, and healthcare. American Journal of Bioethics, 1(2), 2–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. E. (1997). Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26, 303–350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. (1998). The ethics of accountability and the reform of managed care organisations. Health Affairs, 17(5), 50–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. E. (2002). Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Danzon, P. M., et al. (2018). Objectives, budgets, thresholds, and opportunity costs-a health economics approach: An ISPOR special task force report [4]. Value Health, 21(2), 140–145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Descartes (1994) Oeuvres et Lettres, Paris: Gallimard. (Ed. and Trans. G. Heffernan). Discourse on the method, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  24. Drummond, M., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G., O’Brien, G., & Stoddard, G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Durkheim, E. (1925). Moral education. A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education (Ed. E.K. Wilson, E.K. Wilson & H. Schnurer, Transl.) (1973). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dworkin, R. (1993). Justice in the distribution of health care, repr. In M. Clayton; A. Williams (eds.), The ideal of equality, 2002 (pp. 203–222). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Dworkin, R. (1994). Justice and the high cost of health, repr. in id., Sovereign Virtue. In The theory and practice of equality, 2000 (pp. 307–319). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Eichler, H. G., Kong, S. X., Gerth, W. C., Mavros, P., & Jonsson, B. (2004). Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health, 7(5), 518–528.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fiske, A., & Tetlock, P. (1997). ‘Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology, 18(2), 255–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2012). Equity in health and health care. In M. V. Pauly, T. G. McGuire, & P. P. Barros (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1003–1092). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Gafni, A., & Birch, S. (2006). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2091–2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. George, B., Harris, A., & Mitchell, A. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics, 19(11), 1103–1109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gold, M., Siegel, J., Russell, L., & Weinstein, M. C. (1994). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hadorn, D. C. (1991). The oregon priority-setting exercise: Quality of life and public policy. Hastings Center Report, 21(3), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ham, C. (1997). Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy, 42(1), 49–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hausman, D. M. (2006). Valuing health. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 34(3), 246–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hausman, D. (2015). Valuing health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jecker, N. S. (2013). Justice between age groups: An objection to the prudential lifespan approach. AJOB, 13(8), 3–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonsen, A. R. (1986). Bentham in a box: Technology assessment and health care allocation. Law, Medicine, and Health Care, 14, 172–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity. An essay in exteriority. (A. Lingis, Transl.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being and beyond essence. (A. Lingis, Transl.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Levinas, E. (1987). Time and the other. (R.A. Cohen, Transl.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Levinas, E. (1990). Nine talmudic readings (A. Aronowicz, Transl.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Levinas, E. (2006). Thinking-of-the-other. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  45. Marseille, E., Larson, B., Kazi, D. S., Kahn, J. G., & Rosen, S. (2015). Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: Alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ, 93(2), 118–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. McCabe, C., Claxton, K., & Culyer, A. J. (2008). The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(9), 733–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. McGraw, P. A., Davis, D. F., Scott, S. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2016). The price of not putting a price on love. Judgement and Decision Making, 11(1), 40–47.Google Scholar
  48. McGraw, P. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mckie, J., & Richardson, J. (2003). The rule of rescue. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 2407–2419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1005–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearson, S. D., & Rawlins, M. D. (2005). Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA, 294(20), 2618–2622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabik, L. M., & Lie, R. K. (2008). Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7, 4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Schildmann, J., & Vollmann, J. (2017). Personalized medicine: Conceptual, ethical and empirical challenges. In T. Schramme & S. Edwards (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of medicine. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (2012). Taboo scenarios: How to think about the unthinkable. California Management Review, 54(2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schokkaert, E. (2009). Willingness to pay and solidarity. In M. Wynants (Ed.), In sickness and in health. The future of medicine (pp. 99–111). Brussel: VUB Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schokkaert, E. (2011). Philosophers and taboo trade-offs in health care. In A. Gosseries & Y. Vanderborght (Eds.), Arguing about justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs (pp. 303–309). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  57. Segall, S. (2009). Health, luck and justice. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sendi, P., Gafni, A., & Birch, S. (2002). Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Economics, 11, 23–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Steel, D. (2014). Philosophy and the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tetlock, P. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Lerner, J. S. (1996). Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates. In C. Seligman, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Values. Eight annual Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (pp. 25–51). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Tetlock, P., et al. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates and heretical counterfacts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Thokala, P., Ochalek, J., Leech, A. A., & Tong, T. (2018). Cost-effectiveness thresholds: The past, the present and the future. Pharmacoeconomics, 36(5), 509–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Vollmann, J., Sandow, V., Wäscher, S., & Schildman, J. (2015). The ethics of personalised medicine: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Weinstein, M., & Zeckhauser, R. (1973). Critical ratios and efficient allocation. Journal of Public Economics, 2(2), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. WHO. (2014). Choosing interventions that are cost-effective. Available from: http://www.who.int/choice/en.
  67. Williams, A. H., & Cookson, R. A. (2006). Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(1), 1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Woods, B., et al. (2016). Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: Initial estimates and the need for further research. Value Health, 19(8), 929–935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuven Institute for Healthcare PolicyKULeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Centre for Biomedical Ethics and LawKULeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations