Governments cannot afford all the healthcare from which people could possibly benefit
Either implicitly or explicitly, we make choices about which programs to fund, which populations to screen, and which expensive new drugs to provide to which patients
Decision Analysis can help us ensure that we prioritize the highest value care possible at an efficient price point
Decision analysis is a methodology that is uniquely beneficial when there are meaningful tradeoffs between healthcare interventions, but the best strategies for obtaining optimal outcomes are uncertain.
Economists have long defined value as “outcomes relative to costs”
> If we only consider benefits when we define value, it’s no different than efficacy or effectiveness research. And we obviously don’t want to just consider costs without benefits!
You have been appointed as Director of a funding allocation committee responsible for prevention & treatment initiatives for HIV.
How will the committee decide on the proportion of funds for prevention efforts versus treatment?
Should any of the funds be used for research?
How do you respond to a member who argues that the funds are better spent on childhood vaccinations?
A hypothetical birth defect is present in every 1 in 1,000 children born
Unless treated, this condition has a 50% fatality rate
Should we test for this hypothetical birth defect?
A hypothetical birth defect is present in every 1 in 1,000 children born.
Unless treated, this condition has a 50% fatality rate.
Should we test for this hypothetical birth defect?
Diagnostic test: Perfectly accurate
All newborns in whom the defect is identified can be successfully cured
BUT the test itself can be lethal:
Objective: Minimize total expected deaths
Objective: Minimize total expected deaths
Consider a population of 100,000 newborns
Testing produces: (0.0004 x 100,000) = 40 expected deaths
No testing produces: (0.001 x 0.5 x 100,000) = 50 expected deaths
Looks like TESTING WINS!
Anyone got a problem with this??
With testing, virtually all 40 deaths occur in infants born without the fatal condition.
With no testing, all 50 expected deaths occur from “natural causes” (i.e. unpreventable birth defect)
“Innocent deaths” inflicted on children who had “nothing to gain” from testing program
We may treat one child’s death as more tolerable than some other’s – even when we have no way, before the fact, of distinguishing one infant from the other.
Another example of “Competing interests”
[Leech AA, 2024]
[Leech AA, 2024]
[Leech AA, 2024]
[Leech AA, 2024]
The appropriate balance of competing interests between the pregnant individual and the infant is an ethical exercise that is beyond the scope of simulation modeling.
Even if buprenorphine is “dominating” in the parlance of decision science and health economics–if requiring this treatment leads to reduced retention–it becomes a poor policy, leading to worse outcomes & higher costs than allowing individuals to CHOOSE their preferred option.
Aims to inform choice under uncertainty using an explicit, quantitative approach
Aims to identify, measure, & value the consequences of decisions under uncertainty when a decision needs to be made, most appropriately over time.