A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of the Australian Indigenous population

Background : Efficiency and equity are both important policy objectives in resource allocation. The discipline of health economics has traditionally focused on maximising efficiency, however addressing inequities in health also requires consideration. Methods to incorporate equity within economic evaluation techniques range from qualitative judgements to quantitative outcomes-based equity weights. Yet, due to definitional uncertainties and other inherent limitations, no method has been universally adopted to date. This paper proposes an alternative cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of interventions delivered from primary health care services.

Methods : Equity is defined in terms of 'access' to health services, with the vertical equity objective to achieve 'equitable access for unequal need'. Using the Australian Indigenous population as an illustrative case study, the magnitude of the equity weight is constructed using the ratio of the costs of providing specific interventions via Indigenous primary health care services compared with the costs of the same interventions delivered via mainstream services. Applying this weight to the costs of subsequent interventions deflates the costs of provision via Indigenous health services, and thus makes comparisons with mainstream more equitable when applied during economic evaluation.

Results : Based on achieving 'equitable access', existing measures of health inequity are suitable for establishing 'need', however the magnitude of health inequity is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of resources required to redress it. Rather, equitable access may be better measured using appropriate methods of health service delivery for the target group. 'Equity of access' also suggests a focus on the processes of providing equitable health care rather than on outcomes, and therefore supports application of equity weights to the cost side rather than the outcomes side of the economic equation.

Conclusion : Cost-based weights have the potential to provide a pragmatic method of equity weight construction which is both understandable to policy makers and sensitive to the needs of target groups. It could improve the evidence base for resource allocation decisions, and be generalised to other disadvantaged groups who share similar concepts of equity. Development of this decision-making tool represents a potentially important avenue for further health economics research.

Economic evaluation of skin cancer prevention in Australia

Objectives
Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, despite prevention campaigns being implemented since the early 1980s. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of a skin cancer prevention program (named SunSmart) since it was introduced, together with its potential cost-effectiveness as an upgraded and ongoing national program.

Methods
The reduction in melanoma incidence attributable to SunSmart was modelled as the primary end-point. Historical expenditures on SunSmart were obtained from representative Australian states in three latitude zones. Melanoma incidence rates from these states were used to model key health outcomes. Non-melanoma skin cancer was modelled separately based on national survey results.

Results
We estimate that SunSmart has averted 28,000 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), equivalent to 22,000 life-years saved, in the state of Victoria since its introduction in 1988, as well as saving money from cost offset in skin cancer management (dominant). An upgraded national program for the next 20 years is estimated to avert 120,000 DALYs, with associated reductions in the use of health care resources. It remains a dominant intervention in which every dollar invested in SunSmart will return an estimated AU$2.30.

Conclusions
This study demonstrates that a sustained modest investment in skin cancer control is likely to be an excellent value for money.

Economic evaluation of a skin cancer prevention program in Australia : past achievements and future prospects

Objectives
Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. Skin cancer prevention campaigns have been implemented in Australia for over two decades. The most notable is under the brand name, SunSmart. The aim of the current study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of SunSmart in the past and the potential cost-effectiveness of an ongoing national SunSmart program with optimal investment in the future.

Methods
An economic evaluation from a health sector perspective was conducted using the reduction in skin cancer incidence attributable to the SunSmart program modelled as the primary end-point. Historical SunSmart program expenditures were obtained from three representative states in three latitude zones, covering different levels of UVR exposure. Melanoma incidence rates from the three representative state cancer registers were used to model the health outcomes. Program effectiveness was assessed by the comparison between the well-resourced SunSmart state (Victoria) and the under-invested states (New South Wales and Queensland). Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) was modelled based on national survey results. 2003 was chosen as the reference year and future costs/outcomes over a 20 year time horizon were discounted at 3%.
The future level of investment in a national SunSmart was chosen to strengthen current practice by increasing current investment to a realistic and achievable level. This conservative increase in investment (expressed as ‘$ per capita’) reflected the investment level that has been achieved in Victoria over sustained periods. To model the potential cost-effectiveness of an upgraded national SunSmart program, a conservative approach was taken, whereby the same magnitude of effectiveness from 1988 to 2003 was applied to future skin cancer incidence.

Results
SunSmart in Victoria has saved 22,300 life-years, averted 27,900 disability-adjusted life-years(DALYs)(discounted) since its introduction in 1988 and achieved an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $AUD 680 per life-year saved (LYS) and $AUD 540 per DALY averted. When the cost-offset from the estimated reduction in skin cancer treatment costs were taken into account, SunSmart achieved ‘dominance’. The net cost of SunSmart in the past was an estimated saving of $AUD 93 million. An upgraded national SunSmart for the next 20 years would save 91,000 life-years and avert 122,000 DALYs (discounted), involving an increased investment level from the current $AUD 0.07 per capita to the historical average of $AUD 0.28 per capita. The ICER for the upgraded SunSmart program was estimated at $AUD 940 per LYS and $AUD 700 per DALY averted. When the cost-offset is included, the program achieves dominance with a cost saving of $AUD 115 million – an estimated $AUD 2.32 return for every dollar invested between 2003 and 2022.

Conclusions
This study demonstrates that a sustained modest investment in skin cancer control is likely to be excellent value-for-money. While the available data base is certainly not prefect, key parameters would have to change dramatically for this conclusion to be challenged.