Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38411845›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2024

A principled approach to non-discrimination in cost-effectiveness.

Darius N Lakdawalla, Jason N Doctor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The economic burden of functional neurological disorder.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Darius N LakdawallaSchaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. dlakdawa@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5934-8042
Jason N DoctorSchaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3661-8745

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) prohibits the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from using standard quality-adjusted life-years or other value assessment methods that discriminate against the aged, terminally ill, or disabled when setting maximum fair prices for prescription drugs. This policy has reignited interest in methods for assessing value without discrimination. Equal value of life-years gained (EVL), healthy years in total (HYT), and Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) have emerged as proposals. Neither EVL nor HYT rests on well-articulated microeconomic foundations. We show that they produce decisions that are inconsistent over time in a variety of ways, including: (1) failure to support additivity and indirect comparison in cases where the standard-of-care therapy changes over time; (2) strictly negative value of survival gains that accrue from a new, better standard-of-care, particularly for the disabled themselves; (3) unbounded average value of survival gains; and (4) non-convex survival preferences. We propose an alternative method that relies on GRACE and its microeconomic foundations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.HumansPersons with DisabilitiesUnited StatesCost-effectivenessEqual value of life-years gainedEquityGeneralized risk-adjusted cost-effectivenessHealth years in total

Identifiers

PMID38411845
PMCPMC11639167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.