Cost of Carbon in the Total Cost of Healthcare Procedures: A Methodological Challenge.

Economic evaluations aim to compare the costs and the results of health strategies to guide the public decision-making process. Cost estimation is, thus, a cornerstone of this approach. At present, few national evaluation agencies recommend incorporating the cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from healthcare actions into the calculation of healthcare costs. Our main goal is to describe and discuss the methodology for integrating the cost of GHG emissions into the field of applied economic evaluations. To estimate this cost, three steps are required: (1) identifying and quantifying the physical flows linked to the production and management of the outputs of healthcare interventions, (2) estimating the quantity of GHG that can be attributed to each physical flow, and (3) valuing these GHG emissions in monetary terms. Integrating the cost of GHG emissions into the calculation of the costs of healthcare interventions is both useful and relevant from a perspective of collective intergenerational well-being. This approach has been made possible thanks to the existence of accounting and monetary valuation methods for emissions. Agencies specialized in health economic evaluations could take up this issue to resolve ongoing questions, thus providing researchers with a methodological framework and public decision-makers with some key insights.

How can the environmental sustainability of healthcare products be taken into account throughout their life cycle?

Healthcare product procurement accounts for around 50% of the French healthcare system's greenhouse gas emissions. This lesson learned from the publication of the Shift Project's work in November 2021 has been a catalyst within the healthcare system, accelerating the consideration and implementation of actions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the healthcare system, before, during and after care. In addition to their carbon footprint, healthcare products have a wide range of environmental impacts, including on water, air and soil, throughout their entire life cycle. We have chosen to divide this life cycle into four main stages: from research and development to production, distribution and market access, use and finally end-of-life management. Analysis of the regulatory framework at each stage and of existing initiatives described in the literature or by those in the field have structured and fuelled our thinking. We found that existing regulations focus exclusively on the health risk, with little or no consideration of the environmental risk, which is in itself a health risk. Furthermore, the implementation of certain structuring actions during the first 3 stages of the life cycle would make it possible to simplify or even eliminate the major problem of waste management associated with the end-of-life of healthcare products. With this in mind, we have produced 9 recommendations to ensure that the environmental impact of healthcare products is better taken into account throughout their life cycle.

Health-care systems' resource footprints and their access and quality in 49 regions between 1995 and 2015: an input-output analysis.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce the environmental impact of health care are often limited to greenhouse gas emissions. To broaden their scope, our aim was to determine the evolution of the resource footprints, dependency, and efficiency of health-care systems and to determine the relationship between this evolution and their Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index. METHODS: We carried out an input-output analysis of 49 health-care systems from 1995 to 2015. We harmonised the EXIOBASE v3.8.2 database-providing data for 49 world regions-to the World Health Organization Health Expenditures Database. We then performed a panel data analysis to understand the relationship between Healthcare Access and Quality index and energy footprint per capita of health-care systems. EXIOBASE3 does not provide measurement errors so it was not possible to propagate the uncertainties as can be done with other input-output databases. FINDINGS: Health-care systems' footprint increased over the past two decades, reaching 7% of global non-metallic minerals footprint, 4% of global metal ores footprint, and 5% of global fossil fuels footprint in 2013. This increase was mostly due to China, rising from 7% of the non-metallic minerals footprint in 1995 to 45% in 2013. 80% of the health-care systems studied were dependent at more than 50% on fossil fuel imports. The energy footprint per capita was correlated exponentially with the HAQ index but some countries performed much better than others at a given energy footprint. Health-care systems have not become more efficient between 2002 and 2015. INTERPRETATION: Health-care systems' resources footprint are exponentially linked to their HAQ. Both prevention and efficiency measures will be needed to change this relationship. If it is not enough, high-income countries will have to choose between further reducing the resource consumption of their health-care systems or shifting the efforts to other sectors, health being considered an incompressible need. We call for the creation of a HAQE (health-care access, quality, and efficiency) index that would add resource efficiency to access and quality when ranking health-care systems. FUNDING: The Shift Project.