Conventional practice within the United Kingdom and beyond is to conduct economic evaluations with “health” as evaluative space and “health maximization” as the decision-making rule. However, there is increasing recognition that this evaluative framework may not always be appropriate, and this is particularly the case within public health and social care contexts. This article presents a methodological case study designed to explore the impact of changing the evaluative space within an economic evaluation from health to capability well-being and the decision-making rule from health maximization to the maximization of sufficient capability. Capability well-being is an evaluative space grounded on Amartya Sen’s capability approach and assesses well-being based on individuals’ ability to do and be the things they value in life. Sufficient capability is an egalitarian approach to decision making that aims to ensure everyone in society achieves a normatively sufficient level of capability well-being. The case study is treatment for drug addiction, and the cost-effectiveness of 2 psychological interventions relative to usual care is assessed using data from a pilot trial. Analyses are undertaken from a health care and a government perspective. For the purpose of the study, quality-adjusted life years (measured using the EQ-5D-5L) and years of full capability equivalent and years of sufficient capability equivalent (both measured using the ICECAP-A [ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults]) are estimated. The study concludes that different evaluative spaces and decision-making rules have the potential to offer opposing treatment recommendations. The implications for policy makers are discussed.
MathesTJacobsEMorfeldJ-CPieperD.Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations—a comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):371.
2.
CoastJ.Maximisation in extra-welfarism: a critique of the current position in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(5):786–92.
3.
Al-JanabiHFlynnTNCoastJ.QALYs and carers. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(12):1015–23.
4.
WeatherlyHDrummondMClaxtonKCooksonRFergusonBGodfreyC. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations. Health policy. 2009;93(2):85–92.
5.
LorgellyPKLawsonKDFenwickEABriggsAH.Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: a role for the capability approach?International journal of environmental research and public health. 2010;7(5):2274–89.
6.
ChalkidouKCulyerANaidooBLittlejohnsP.Cost-effective public health guidance: asking questions from the decision-maker’s viewpoint. Health Econ. 2008;17(3):441–8.
7.
KnappMMangaloreR.The trouble with QALYs…. Epidemiologia e psichiatria sociale. 2007;16(04):289–93.
8.
CoastJFlynnTSuttonEAl-JanabiHVosperJLavenderS. Investigating Choice Experiments for Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP): evaluative spaces in health economics. Journal of health services research & policy. 2008;13(suppl 3):31–7.
9.
CoastJ.Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(4):473–82.
10.
PayneKMcAllisterMDaviesLM.Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22(3):258–71.
11.
NettenABurgePMalleyJPotoglouDTowersA-MBrazierJ. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technology Assessment. 2012;16(16):1–166.
12.
SimonJAnandPGrayARugkåsaJYeelesKBurnsT.Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:187–96.
13.
CoastJFlynnTNNatarajanLSprostonKLewisJLouviereJJ. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):874–82.
14.
Al-JanabiHFlynnTNCoastJ.Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.
15.
SuttonEJCoastJ.Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):151–7.
16.
SenA. Capability and well-being. In: NussbaumMSenA, ed. The Quality of Life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1993.
17.
MitchellPMAl-JanabiHRichardsonJIezziACoastJ.The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: a multi-country study. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143590.
18.
GoranitisICoastJDayE. 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. Value Health. 2016;19(6):820–8.
19.
NordERichardsonJStreetAKuhseHSingerP.Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1429–37.
20.
AnandPWailooA.Utilities versus rights to publicly provided goods: arguments and evidence from health care rationing. Economica. 2000;67(268):543–77.
21.
FreemantleNBloorKEastaughJ.A fair innings for NICE?Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(6):389–91.
22.
CoastJ.Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values?BMJ. 2004;329(7476):1233.
23.
DolanPShawRTsuchiyaAWilliamsA.QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197–208.
24.
CoastJSmithRDLorgellyP.Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: the spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(7):1190–8.
25.
AsariaMGriffinSCooksonRWhyteSTappendenP.Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes—a methodological case study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Health Econ. 2015;24(6):742–54.
26.
CooksonRDrummondMWeatherlyH.Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(2):231–45.
27.
GafniABirchS.Equity considerations in utility-based measures of health outcomes in economic appraisals: an adjustment algorithm. J Health Econ. 1991;10(3):329–42.
28.
WilliamsA.Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 1997;6(2):117–32.
29.
WilliamsAHCooksonRA.Equity–efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):1–9.
30.
RawlsJ.A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.
31.
DanielsN.Just Health Care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
32.
RugerJP.Health and Social Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.
33.
MitchellPMRobertsTEBartonPMCoastJ.Applications of the capability approach in the health field: a literature review. Social Indicators Research. 2016. 1–27. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-016-1356-8.
34.
SenA.Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
35.
MitchellPMRobertsTEBartonPMCoastJ.Assessing sufficient capability: a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:71–9.
36.
SindelarJLJofre-BonetMFrenchMTMcLellanAT.Cost-effectiveness analysis of addiction treatment: paradoxes of multiple outcomes. Drug Alcohol Dependence. 2004;73(1):41–50.
37.
De MaeyerJVanderplasschenWBroekaertE. Quality of life among opiate-dependent individuals: a review of the literature. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(5):364–80.
38.
Department of Health (DoH). Drug Strategy2010. Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life. London, UK: DoH; 2010.
39.
UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC).The UKDPC Recovery Consensus Group: A Vision of Recovery. London: UKDPC; 2008.
40.
DayECopelloASeddonJL. Pilot study of a social network intervention for heroin users in opiate substitution treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):264.
41.
CopelloAOrfordJHodgsonRToberG.Social Behaviour and Network Therapy for Alcohol Problems. London, UK: Routledge; 2009.
42.
BeechamJKnappM.Costing psychiatric interventions. In:ThornicroftGBrewinCWingJ, eds. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd ed.London, UK: Gaskell; 2001. p 200–24.
43.
NettenACurtisL.Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent at Canterbury, Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2002.
44.
CurtisL.Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent, United Kingdom; 2013.
45.
Department of Health. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2013–14 for NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts: NHS Own Costs. London, United Kingdom; 2013.
46.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. What price policing? A study of efficiency and value for money in the police service. J Mental Health Policy Econ. 2007;10(1):231998.
47.
HarriesR.The Cost of Criminal Justice. London, UK: Great Britain Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate; 1999.
ByfordSKnappMGreenshieldsJ. Cost-effectiveness of brief cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual in recurrent deliberate self-harm: a decision-making approach. Psychol Med. 2003;33(6):977–86.
British National Formulary (BNF).London: BMJ Group and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain; 2014.
55.
DrummondMFSculpherMJTorranceGWO’BrienBJStoddartGL.Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.
56.
NHS Careers. Pay for Doctors. London, UK: NHS Careers; 2013.
AssmannSFPocockSJEnosLEKastenLE.Subgroup analysis and other (mis) uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355(9209):1064–9.
60.
HerdmanMGudexCLloydA. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
61.
van HoutBJanssenMFengY-S. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.
62.
DolanP.Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
63.
FlynnTNHuynhEPetersTJ. Scoring the ICECAP-A Capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ. 2015;24:258–69.
64.
MancaAHawkinsNSculpherMJ.Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):487–96.
65.
BriggsAClarkTWolstenholmeJClarkeP.Missing … presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 2003;12(5):377–92.
66.
MarshallABillinghamLJBryanS.Can we afford to ignore missing data in cost-effectiveness analyses?Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(1):1–3.
67.
BurtonABillinghamLJBryanS.Cost-effectiveness in clinical trials: using multiple imputation to deal with incomplete cost data. Clin Trials. 2007;4(2):154–61.
68.
SimonsCLRivero-AriasOYuL-MSimonJ.Multiple imputation to deal with missing EQ-5D-3L data: should we impute individual domains or the actual index?Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):805–15.
69.
WhiteIRRoystonPWoodAM.Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–99.
70.
RubinDB.Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley; 1987.
71.
DunnGMirandolaMMaddeoFTansellaM.Describing, explaining or predicting mental health care costs: a guide to regression models. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183(5):398–404.
72.
O’HaganAStevensJW.Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?Health Econ. 2003;12(1):33–49.
73.
HochJSBriggsAHWillanAR.Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):415–30.
74.
JohannessonMWeinsteinMC.On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1993;12(4):459–67.
75.
BriggsAGrayAM.Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(2):1–134.
76.
GlickHBriggsAHPolskyD.Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2001;1:25–36.
77.
FenwickEClaxtonKSculpherM.Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779–87.
78.
BartonGRBriggsAHFenwickEA. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health. 2008;11(5):886–97.
79.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance.2nd ed.London, UK: NICE; 2008.
80.
HealeyAKnappMAstinJ. Economic burden of drug dependency. Social costs incurred by drug users at intake to the National Treatment Outcome Research Study. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;173(2):160–5.
81.
GodfreyCStewartDGossopM.Economic analysis of costs and consequences of the treatment of drug misuse: 2-year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Addiction. 2004;99(6):697–707.
82.
GodfreyC.Evidence-based illicit drug policy: the potential contribution of economic evaluation techniques. Economist. 2006;154(4):563–80.
83.
ByfordSBarrettBMetrebianN. Cost-effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment v. oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(5):341–9.
84.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).Process and Methods Guides: The Social Care Guidance Manual. London, UK: NICE; 2013.
85.
DijkgraafMGvan der ZandenBPde BorgieCABlankenPvan ReeJMvan den BrinkW.Cost utility analysis of co-prescribed heroin compared with methadone maintenance treatment in heroin addicts in two randomised trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7503):1297.
86.
ChisholmDHealeyAKnappM.QALYs and mental health care. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1997;32(2):68–75.
87.
van der ZandenBPDijkgraafMGBlankenPde BorgieCAvan ReeJMvan den BrinkW.Validity of the EQ-5D as a generic health outcome instrument in a heroin-dependent population. Drug Alcohol Dependence. 2006;82(2):111–8.
88.
BrazierJTsuchiyaA.Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(6):557–65.
89.
DevlinNShahKFengYMulhernBvan HoutB.Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. London, UK: Office of Health Economics;2016.
90.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal2013. London, UK: NICE;2013.
91.
CoastJSmithRLorgellyP.Should the capability approach be applied in health economics?Health Econ. 2008;17(6):667–70.
92.
HendersonCKnappMFernándezJ-L. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f1035.
93.
MakaiPLoomanWAdangEMelisRStolkEFabbricottiI.Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(4):437–50.
94.
Department of Health (DoH). Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS) Pay and Prices Index. London, UK: DoH; 2013.
