Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Mira Johri (a1) and Ole Frithjof Norheim (a2)


Objectives: The aim of this study was to promote approaches to health technology assessment (HTA) that are both evidence-based and values-based. We conducted a systematic review of published studies describing formal methods to consider equity in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

Methods: Candidate studies were identified through an unrestricted search of the Pub Med and EMBASE databases. The search closed on January 20, 2011. We identified additional studies by consulting experts and checking article bibliographies. Two authors independently reviewed each candidate study to determine inclusion and extracted data from studies retained for review. In addition to documenting methods, data extraction identified implicit and explicit notions of fairness. Data were synthesized in narrative form. Study quality was not assessed.

Results: Of the 695 candidate articles, 51 were retained for review. We identified three broad methods to facilitate quantitative consideration of equity concerns in economic evaluation: integration of distributional concerns through equity weights and social welfare functions, exploration of the opportunity costs of alternative policy options through mathematical programming, and multi-criteria decision analysis.

Conclusions: Several viable techniques to integrate equity concerns within CEA now exist, ranging from descriptive approaches to the quantitative methods studied in this review. Two obstacles at the normative level have impeded their use in decision making to date: the multiplicity of concepts and values discussed under the rubric of equity, and the lack of a widely accepted normative source on which to ground controversial value choices. Clarification of equity concepts and attention to procedural fairness may strengthen use of these techniques in HTA decision making.



Hide All
1.ANAND, P.QALYS and the integration of claims in health-care rationing. Health Care Anal. 1999;7:239253.
2.Anand, P.The integration of claims to health-care: A programming approach. J Health Econ. 2003;22:731745.
3.Baltussen, R, Niessen, L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.
4.Baltussen, R, Stolk, E, Chisholm, D, Aikins, M. Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: An application to Ghana. Health Econ. 2006;15:689696.
5.Baltussen, R, ten Asbroek, AH, Koolman, X, et al. Priority setting using multiple criteria: Should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan. 2007;22:178185.
6.Birch, S, Gafni, A. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ. 1992;11:279296.
7.Bleichrodt, H. Health utility indices and equity considerations. J Health Econ. 1997;16:6591.
8.Bleichrodt, H, Diecidue, E, Quiggin, J. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: The rank-dependent QALY model. J Health Econ. 2004;23:157171.
9.Brock, D. Empirical ethics, moral philosophy, and the democracy problem. In: Murray, CJ, Salomon, JA, Mathers, C, Lopez, AD, eds. Summary measures of population health. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2003.
10.Cantor, SB. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics: A quantitative assessment. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:259265.
11.Cleary, S, Mooney, G, McIntyre, D. Equity and efficiency in HIV-treatment in South Africa: The contribution of mathematical programming to priority setting. Health Econ. 2010;19:11661180.
12.Cookson, R, Drummond, M, Weatherly, H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4 (Pt 2):231245.
13.Daniels, N.Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
14.Dolan, P. The measurement of individual utility and social welfare. J Health Econ. 1998;17:3952.
15.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
16.Earnshaw, SR, Richter, A, Sorensen, SW, et al. Optimal allocation of resources across four interventions for type 2 diabetes. Med Decis Making. 2002; 22 (Suppl):S80S91.
17.Epstein, DM, Chalabi, Z, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Efficiency, equity, and budgetary policies: Informing decisions using mathematical programming. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:128137.
18.Fishkin, JS.Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991.
19.Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, et al. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: Applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8:4.
20.Jehu-Appiah, C, Baltussen, R, Acquah, C, et al. Balancing equity and efficiency in health priorities in Ghana: The use of multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health. 2008;11:10811087.
21.Johannesson, M. Should we aggregate relative or absolute changes in QALYs? Health Econ. 2001;10:573577.
22.Johri, M, Damschroder, LJ, Zikmund-Fisher, BJ, Ubel, PA. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: Does intervention-type matter? Health Econ. 2005;14:669678.
23.Kaplan, EH, Merson, MH. Allocating HIV-prevention resources: Balancing efficiency and equity. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:19051907.
24.Lindholm, L, Rosen, M. On the measurement of the nation's equity adjusted health. Health Econ. 1998;7:621628.
25.Lindholm, L, Rosen, M, Emmelin, M. How many lives is equity worth? A proposal for equity adjusted years of life saved. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:808811.
26.Lloyd, AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: Are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ. 2003;12:393402.
27.Makundi, E, Kapiriri, L, Norheim, OF. Combining evidence and values in priority setting: Testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:152.
28.Mortimer, D. The value of thinly spread QALYs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:845853.
29.Nord, E.Cost-value analysis in health care: Making sense out of QALYs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
30.Nord, E, Pinto, JL, Richardson, J, Menzel, P, Ubel, P. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 1999;8:2539.
31.Norheim, OF, Asada, Y. The ideal of equal health revisited: Definitions and measures of inequity in health should be better integrated with theories of distributive justice. Int J Equity Health. 2009;8:40.
32.Rodriguez, E, Pinto, JL. The social value of health programmes: Is age a relevant factor? Health Econ. 2000;9:611621.
33.Rodriguez-Miguez, E, Pinto-Prades, JL. Measuring the social importance of concentration or dispersion of individual health benefits. Health Econ. 2002;11:4353.
34.Sassi, F, Archard, L, Le Grand, J. Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:i+iii–130.
35.Schwappach, DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: A review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5:210222.
36.Sen, A.On economic inequality. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1997.
37.Shah, KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature. Health Policy. 2009;93:7784.
38.Stinnett, AA, Paltiel, AD. Mathematical programming for the efficient allocation of health care resources. J Health Econ. 1996;15:641653.
39.Stolk, EA, van Donselaar, G, Brouwer, WB, Busschbach, JJ. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: Illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:10971107.
40.The Global Equity Gauge Alliance. The equity gauge: Concepts, principles, and guidelines. Durban: Global Equity Gauge Alliance and Health Systems Trust; 2003.
41.Tsuchiya, A. Age-related preferences and age weighting health benefits. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:267276.
42.Tsuchiya, A, Dolan, P, Shaw, R. Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: Some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:687696.
43.Tsuchiya, A, Williams, A. A “fair innings” between the sexes: Are men being treated inequitably? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:277286.
44.Ubel, PA. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:895903.
45.Ubel, PA, DeKay, ML, Baron, J, Asch, DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints–is it equitable? N Engl J Med. 1996;334:11741177.
46.Wagstaff, A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ. 1991;10:2141.
47.Weatherly, H, Drummond, M, Claxton, K, et al. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy. 2009;93:8592.
48.Williams, A. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 1997;6:117132.
49.Wolfson, M, Rowe, G. On measuring inequalities in health. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:553560.
50.World Health Organization. Health systems: Improving performance. World Health Report Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000:i141.
51.Zaric, GS, Brandeau, ML. Optimal investment in a portfolio of HIV prevention programs. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:391408.
52.Zenios, SA, Wein, LM, Chertow, GM. Evidence-based organ allocation. Am J Med. 1999;107:5261.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Johri and Norheim supplementary material
Supplementary tables

 Unknown (52 KB)
52 KB


  • Mira Johri (a1) and Ole Frithjof Norheim (a2)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed