Valuing the Economic Benefits of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient

Abstract

Complex interventions, involving interlinked packages of care, challenge the application of current methods of economic evaluation that focus on measuring only health gain. Complex interventions may be problematic on two levels. The complexity means the intervention may not fit into one of the current appraisal systems, and/or maximising health is not the only objective. This paper discusses the implications of a programme of work that focused on clinical genetics services, as an example of a complex intervention, and aimed to identify the following: the attributes that comprise both health and non-health aspects of benefits and whether it is possible to evaluate such an intervention using current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal processes. Genetic services and tests are a good example of a complex intervention and have broader objectives than just health gain, which may usefully be measured using the concept related to capability, which we have called 'empowerment'. Further methodological work is required to identify the trade-off between non-health (empowerment) and health benefits for other complex interventions. We do not advocate a move away from QALY maximisation but do suggest that there is a need for a more considered approach that can take account of the perceived value for non-health attributes for some complex interventions.

Intervention Now to Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement

“…We documented the way in which these studies attempted to overcome the methodological challenges specifically associated with these types of complex, preventative, behavioural change based interventions. [63][64][65][66] We planned to conduct a meta-analysis of the economic evidence (if the data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow it).…”

Measuring Health and Broader Well-Being Benefits in the Context of Opiate Dependence: The Psychometric Performance of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5L

“…It is designed to measure a core set of domains believed to impact on quality of life and linked to health. However, with this focus on certain aspects of health, the EQ-5D may not adequately reflect the impact of all health care interventions [10], such as for hearing or vision disorders [11], and severe mental health problems [12], and particularly of those resulting in broader personal and interpersonal wellbeing benefits, such as public health and social care interventions [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. An alternative framework for measuring treatment benefits is with the ICEpop CAPability (ICECAP) measures, underpinned by Amartya Sen's capability approach [20].…”

Maximizing Health or Sufficient Capability in Economic Evaluation? A Methodological Experiment of Treatment for Drug Addiction

“…Although national submission guidelines may differ on whether health care costs, with or without personal social services costs, or broader societal costs should be included in economic analyses, they all advocate the maximisation of health, using Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) as the standard unit of outcome. This approach to economic evaluation and resource allocation may be appropriate for the assessment of health care technologies or services that have cost and outcomes that fit neatly within the health sector, but there is a burgeoning literature outlining the reasons why 'health' as evaluative space and 'health maximisation' as the decision making rule might not be appropriate at least in some circumstances [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].…”