Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right and an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Many publicly-funded health systems apply cost-benefit frameworks in response to the moral dilemma of how best to allocate scarce healthcare resources. However, implementation of recommendations based on costs and benefit calculations and subsequent challenges have led to 'special cases' with certain types of health benefits considered more valuable than others. Recent debate and research has focused on the relative value of life extensions for people with terminal illnesses. This research investigates societal perspectives in relation to this issue, in the UK. METHODS: Q methodology was used to elicit societal perspectives from a purposively selected sample of data-rich respondents. Participants ranked 49 statements of opinion (developed for this study), onto a grid, according to level of agreement. These 'Q sorts' were followed by brief interviews. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individuals' Q sorts). RESULTS: Analysis produced a three factor solution. These rich, shared accounts can be broadly summarised as: i) 'A population perspective - value for money, no special cases', ii) 'Life is precious - valuing life-extension and patient choice', iii) 'Valuing wider benefits and opportunity cost - the quality of life and death'. From the factor descriptions it is clear that the main philosophical positions that have long dominated debates on the just allocation of resources have a basis in public opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of certain moral positions in the views of society does not ethically imply, and pragmatically cannot mean, that all are translated into policy. Our findings highlight normative tensions and the importance of critically engaging with these normative issues (in addition to the current focus on a procedural justice approach to health policy). Future research should focus on i) the extent to which these perspectives are supported in society, ii) how respondents' perspectives relate to specific resource allocation questions, and iii) the characteristics of respondents associated with each perspective.

Stakeholders' perception on including broader economic impact of vaccines in economic evaluations in low and middle income countries: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Current health economic evaluation guidelines mainly concentrate on immediate health gains and cost savings for the individual involved in the intervention. However, it has been argued that these guidelines are too narrow to capture the full impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries. The inclusion of broader economic impact of vaccines (BEIV) has therefore been proposed. Some examples of these are productivity-related gains, macro-economic impact, and different externalities. Despite their potency, the extent to which such benefits can and should be incorporated into economic evaluations of vaccination is still unclear. This mixed methods study aims to assess the relevance of BEIV to different stakeholders involved in the vaccine introduction decision making process. METHODS: In this mixed method study an internet based survey was sent to attendees of the New and Underutilized Vaccines Initiative meeting in Montreux, Switzerland in 2011. Additionally, semi-structured interviews of 15 minutes each were conducted during the meeting. Study participants included decision makers, experts and funders of vaccines and immunization programs in low and middle income countries. Descriptive analysis of the survey, along with identification of common themes and factors extracted from the interviews and open survey questions was undertaken. RESULTS: Evidence on macro-economic impact, burden of disease and ecological effects were perceived as being most valuable towards aiding decision making for vaccine introduction by the 26 survey respondents. The 14 interviewees highlighted the importance of burden of disease and different types of indirect effects. Furthermore, some new interpretations of BEIVs were discussed, such as the potential negative impact of wastage during immunization programs and the idea of using vaccines as a platform for delivering other types of health interventions. Interviewees also highlighted the importance of using a broader perspective in connection to measuring economic impacts, particularly when attempting to derive the value of newer, more expensive vaccines. CONCLUSION: According to participants, BEIVs were seen as being equally important as traditional outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness analyses. Such insight can be used to shape research agendas within this field and to eventually create broader, more inclusive practical guidelines for economic evaluations of vaccines.

Systematic review of studies evaluating the broader economic impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Most health economic evaluations of childhood vaccination only capture the health and short-term economic benefits. Measuring broader, long-term effects of vaccination on productivity and externalities could provide a more complete picture of the value of vaccines. METHOD: MEDLINE, EconLit and NHS-EED databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 and July 2011, which captured broader economic benefits of vaccines in low and middle income countries. Studies were included if they captured at least one of the following categories on broader economic impact: outcome-related productivity gains, behaviour-related productivity gains, ecological externalities, equity gains, financial sustainability gains or macroeconomic benefits. RESULTS: Twenty-six relevant studies were found, including observational studies, economic models and contingent valuation studies. Of the identified broader impacts, outcome-related productivity gains and ecological externalities were most commonly accounted for. No studies captured behaviour-related productivity gains or macroeconomic effects. There was some evidence to show that vaccinated children 8-14 years of age benefit from increased cognitive ability. Productivity loss due to morbidity and mortality was generally measured using the human capital approach. When included, herd immunity effects were functions of coverage rates or based on reduction in disease outcomes. External effects of vaccines were observed in terms of equitable health outcomes and contribution towards synergistic and financially sustainable healthcare programs. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial variation in the methods of measurement and outcomes used, the inclusion of broader economic impact was found to improve the attractiveness of vaccination. Further research is needed on how different tools and techniques can be used in combination to capture the broader impact of vaccination in a way that is consistent with other health economic evaluations. In addition, more country level evidence is needed from low and middle income countries to justify future investments in vaccines and immunization programs. Finally, the proposed broader economic impact framework may contribute towards better communication of the economic arguments surrounding vaccine uptake, leading to investments in immunization by stakeholders outside of the traditional health care sector such as ministries of finance and national treasuries.