Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-zts5g Total loading time: 0.673 Render date: 2021-10-21T03:20:24.986Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Five pillars for societal perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

Ruben M. W. A. Drost*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229GT, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Aggie T. G. Paulus
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229GT, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Silvia M. A. A. Evers
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6229GT, Maastricht, The Netherlands Trimbos, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Da Costakade 45, 3521VS, Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Ruben Drost, E-mail: r.drost@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In economic evaluation, the healthcare perspective has gradually given way to use of the societal perspective, as this perspective is often advocated for support in making optimal societal decisions. In practice, economic evaluations conducted from the societal perspective ignore, fail to measure and/or fail to monetize many of the costs that fall outside of the healthcare sector. To limit bias and increase decision-supportive power, researchers could strengthen their evaluations by adhering to a few basic principles. Five “pillars for the societal perspective” are proposed. First, who bears the cost and who does not is irrelevant. Second, it is imperative to consider including costs for sectors outside the healthcare sector. Third, both high frequent costs and costs with high unit prices should be considered. Fourth, double counting should be avoided. And fifth, researchers should reflect on choices related to costs, i.e. cost omission and problems with identifying, measuring, and valuing costs.

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Why the Societal Perspective?

One of the major problems in health economic evaluation is adequately assessing the societal costs of an intervention. The core of the solution is the choice of perspective. The healthcare perspective has gradually given way to use of the societal perspective, as this perspective is often advocated for support in making optimal societal decisions (Reference Walker, Griffin and Asaria1Reference Jonsson3). With welfare economics as its underlying theoretical framework, adopting a societal perspective facilitates policies aimed at maximizing the welfare gains to society (2;4). From this perspective, to optimize the decision-supportive power of these evaluations, all societal costs resulting from the intervention under analysis should be incorporated, regardless of who the payer is (Reference Gold, Siegel and Russell5). In practice, economic evaluations conducted from the societal perspective ignore, fail to measure and/or fail to monetize many of these costs (Reference Drost, van der Putten and Ruwaard6Reference Sanders, Neumann and Basu8). Illustrative earlier reviews on paediatric urology (Reference Kokorowski, Routh and Nelson9) and depression (Reference Brettschneider, Djadran and Harter10) discuss this issue with regard to the variability in the operationalization of this perspective. Furthermore, research shows that some authors use the denominator “societal perspective” yet include only those costs falling within the healthcare sector (Reference Drost, van der Putten and Ruwaard6). As a result, many evaluations in which this perspective has been adopted have limited supportive power for decision making.

Problems with Operationalizing the Societal Perspective

The underlying reasoning and the methodological choices which lie at the foundation of this limitation remain hidden and are likely to vary among researchers. Such choices may have been made either unintentionally or deliberately, both in conducting and reporting evaluations, and costs might have been left out of the equation due to the lack of knowledge, to misconception of what the societal perspective is, and to poor operationalization of it. However, even those knowledgeable with regard to the operationalization of this perspective face challenges in producing the most optimal assessment, and may produce evaluations that are too narrow in scope. This is primarily because currently available methods for identifying, measuring, and valuing costs are limited with regard to the societal perspective. Research on revealed preference methods for valuing costs outside the healthcare sector is restricted mainly to productivity costs (the human capital method, the friction cost method) and costs of informal care (the opportunity cost method, the proxy good method) (Reference Weisbrod11Reference van den Berg, Brouwer and Koopmanschap14), while research into measuring and valuing costs in other sectors, for example the educational and criminal justice sectors, lags behind. Several costing studies on mental illness and substance use show that costs in these sectors can be substantial (Reference Knapp, Romeo and Beecham15Reference Mark, Woody and Juday19). For such health domains in particular, leaving these costs out of the equation can lead to biased economic evaluation results.

A second practical issue is that researchers are also dealing with limited time and resources, and therefore face trade-offs in selecting and measuring costs. Consequently, evaluations vary not only in terms of quality, but also in terms of costs selection, and this negatively affects their comparability. However, even within the methodological constraints, researchers should strive to produce high-quality evaluations which are decision supportive. Ultimately, the decision-supportive power of an evaluation depends, among other factors, on the degree to which costs are reflected in the evaluation. The question remains whether, in general, researchers actively strive to produce the most optimal cost assessment possible.

Principles for Using Societal Perspective

To limit bias and increase decision-supportive power, researchers adopting the societal perspective could strengthen their evaluations by adhering to a few basic principles. The following five “pillars for the societal perspective” are proposed; these will be particularly helpful to those with limited experience in conducting health economic evaluations. First, who bears the cost and who does not is irrelevant. If there is a mechanism for others to be affected, researchers should strive to measure and value the spill-over costs for others than the primary affected individual, such as relatives, insurers, and others. Second, when adopting a societal perspective, as opposed to the healthcare perspective, it is imperative to consider including costs for sectors outside the healthcare sector. This could mean looking beyond labor productivity and informal care. For example, depending on the intervention, researchers could consider assessing costs within other sectors, such as the educational and criminal justice sectors (1;20). Third, both high frequent costs relevant to the evaluation and costs with high unit prices, outside the healthcare sector as well as within it could be measured and included in analyses. Any uncertainty related to ex ante decisions in cost selection should be addressed by consulting literature, e.g. exemplary costing studies, or experts in the contextual field of research, i.e. disease type, type of intervention, target population, et cetera. Any uncertainty related to the causality between the intervention and costs could be addressed by conducting appropriate additional scenario or sensitivity analyses. Fourth, when a societal perspective is adopted, researchers might need to include broader outcomes besides clinical outcome measures or generic health-related quality of life measures such as the quality adjusted life year (QALY). In an economic analysis, researchers should value only costs that have not been included as an outcome. For example, lost days of productivity at work should not be valued if this is the main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Irrespective of the chosen perspective, double counting by including items both in the input side of the evaluation, i.e. costing side, and the output side, i.e. the QALY or other outcome measures, should be avoided at all times (Reference Johannesson21). Finally, like for other methodological choices, researchers should reflect and report on choices related to costs, i.e. cost omission and any problems with identifying, measuring, and valuing costs. Although guidelines for reporting economic evaluations prescribe that methodological limitations should be discussed (Reference Husereau, Drummond and Petrou22), there is little reflection on choices about costs as a methodological strength or limitation (Reference Drost, van der Putten and Ruwaard6).

Conclusion

Worldwide, still many health economic guidelines have not adopted the societal perspective as the leading perspective (23). Furthermore, given that many societal decisions are made within the limits of budget silos, estimating the return of investment for a payer or the healthcare sector itself might often be prioritized over estimating the cost savings for other sectors. Consequently, despite the many arguments for the use of the societal perspective (Reference Walker, Griffin and Asaria1Reference Jonsson3), in practice the choice for the more methodologically feasible narrow perspective is still often favored. Yet, taking societal welfare, and not practical feasibility as a starting point, striving towards a more complete picture of the societal impact of interventions needs to be supported. The societal perspective in economic evaluations is important because of its higher decision-supportive power to optimize resource allocation. HTA- and health economics researchers should, therefore, strive to develop methods for bringing economic evaluations as close to a true societal perspective as possible. This includes developing methods for including non-healthcare costs and outcomes in the equation, instead of listing these separately. Furthermore, for each separate economic evaluation, authors should consider whether the use of the term “societal” can be justified (Reference Walker, Griffin and Asaria1). For many economic evaluations, using terminology such as “healthcare”, “payer”, or other proposed terms such as “restricted societal”, “limited societal”, or “health systems” (Reference Garrison, Mansley and Abbott24), might be more appropriate.

Contributor and Guarantor Information

The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. Silvia Evers had the idea for the editorial. Ruben Drost took the lead in writing the article. All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the drafting of the work, and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All gave final approval of the version to be published in International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Ruben Drost is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish).

Copyright/License for Publication

The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide license to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display, and store the Contribution, (ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, (iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any third party to do any or all of the above.

Conflict Interest

We have read and understood International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests.

Ethical Statement

No patients and/or members of the public were involved in the creation of the article.

References

Walker, S, Griffin, S, Asaria, M et al. (2019) Striving for a societal perspective: A framework for economic evaluations when costs and effects fall on multiple sectors and decision makers. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 17(5), 577590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byford, S, Raftery, J (1998) Perspectives in economic evaluation. Br Med J. 316(7143), 15291530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonsson, B (2009) Ten arguments for a societal perspective in the economic evaluation of medical innovations. Eur J Health Econ 10(4), 357359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, WB, Culyer, AJ, van Exel, NJ et al. (2008) Welfarism vs. Extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 27(2), 325338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, MR, Siegel, JE, Russell, LB et al. (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Drost, RMWA, van der Putten, IM, Ruwaard, D et al. (2017) Conceptualizations of the societal perspective within economic evaluations: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(2), 251260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, PJ (2009) Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care 47(7 Suppl 1), S28S32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A et al. (2016) Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 316(10), 10931103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kokorowski, PJ, Routh, JC, Nelson, CP (2013) Quality assessment of economic analyses in pediatric urology. Urology 81(2), 263267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brettschneider, C, Djadran, H, Harter, M et al. (2015) Cost-utility analyses of cognitive-behavioural therapy of depression: A systematic review. Psychother Psychosom 84(1), 621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisbrod, BA (1961) Economics of public health: Measuring the economic impact of diseases. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmanschap, MA, Rutten, FF, van Ineveld, BM et al. (1995) The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 14(2), 171189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koopmanschap, MA, van Exel, JN, van den Berg, B et al. (2008) An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 26(4), 269280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B, Brouwer, WB, Koopmanschap, MA (2004) Economic valuation of informal care. An overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ 5(1), 3645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M, Romeo, R, Beecham, J (2009) Economic cost of autism in the UK. Autism 13(3): 317336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, DP, Kelman, S, Miller, LS (1991) Estimates of economic costs of alcohol and drug abuse and mental illness, 1985 and 1988. Public Health Rep 106(3), 280292.Google ScholarPubMed
Swanson, JW, Frisman, LK, Robertson, AG et al. (2013) Costs of criminal justice involvement among persons with serious mental illness in connecticut. Psychiatr Serv 64(7), 630637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le, HH, Hodgkins, P, Postma, MJ et al. (2014) Economic impact of childhood/adolescent ADHD in a European setting: The Netherlands as a reference case. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 23(7), 587598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, TL, Woody, GE, Juday, T et al. (2001) The economic costs of heroin addiction in the United States. Drug Alcohol Depend 61(2), 195206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drost, RMWA, Paulus, ATG, Ruwaard, D et al. (2017) Valuing inter-sectoral costs and benefits of interventions in the healthcare sector: Methods for obtaining unit prices. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 17(1), 7784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesson, M. (1997) Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 11(5), 385388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S et al. (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Br Med J. 346, f1049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) (2019) Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Comparative Table. Available at: https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/. Accessed 2019.Google Scholar
Garrison, LP Jr., Mansley, EC, Abbott, TA, 3rd et al. (2010) Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: A societal perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force report-Part II. Value Health 13(1), 813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have Access
Open access
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Five pillars for societal perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Five pillars for societal perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Five pillars for societal perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *