ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Integrating Environmental Impact in Health Technology Assessment: An Exploratory Study.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving cancer care while reducing its carbon footprint: GHG-mitigating strategies highlighted at ESMO 2025.BJC reports · 2026Article
- From Paper to Platform: Updating the Dutch Costing Manual and Launching a Web Application.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Productivity-Adjusted Life Years (PALYs): Methods, Applications and Policy Implications.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the environmental impact of oncology care: A cross-sectional survey of French and Belgian healthcare professionals.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo what extent a care pathway, due to its associated pollution, may be more detrimental to future health than beneficial to contemporary patients is still an open question. We present a methodological framework to integrate pollutant-induced future health damages in health technology assessment (HTA) metrics like quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for a better evaluation of the cost effectiveness of care pathways.
methodsWe used the ReCiPe model to estimate the future detrimental health impact (in disability-adjusted life years [DALY]) of pollutants from the US healthcare system, showing the major impact of GHG emissions compared with other pollutants. An adapted version of the ReCiPe model was used to convert GHG emissions from care pathways into future DALY
resultsFuture damages to health emerging from pollutants emitted by the US healthcare system were estimated at 7,363,000 DALYs per year. Focusing on GHG emissions to estimate pollutant impact is reasonable, as they represent >90% of future damages. We provide estimates to convert GHG emissions into future health damages in DALY, QALY, or LY (and associated uncertainty), taking into account future impacts over different time horizons (20, 100, or 500-1000 years) and using different discount rates for future health impact (0 or 3%). We recommend estimating future damages using an egalitarian perspective (with a 0% discount rate) to maintain intergenerational equity. The QALY
conclusionHTA should consider care pathways' impact on future health to better assess the impact and cost effectiveness of health technologies. Under the hypothesis of intergenerational equity, GHG accounting has a substantial impact, and may presumably impact the decisions of HTA bodies. It may also be seen as an ecological bonus/malus for care pathway developers and pharmaceutical companies, incentivizing the development of greener care pathways. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.