Ethical objections against including life-extension costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: a consistent approach

One of the major ethical concerns regarding cost-effectiveness analysis in health care has been the inclusion of life-extension costs ("it is cheaper to let people die"). For this reason, many analysts have opted to rule out life-extension costs from the analysis. However, surprisingly little has been written in the health economics literature regarding this ethical concern and the resulting practice. The purpose of this work was to present a framework and potential solution for ethical objections against life-extension costs. This work found three levels of ethical concern: (i) with respect to all life-extension costs (disease-related and -unrelated); (ii) with respect to disease-unrelated costs only; and (iii) regarding disease-unrelated costs plus disease-related costs not influenced by the intervention. Excluding all life-extension costs for ethical reasons would require-for reasons of consistency-a simultaneous exclusion of savings from reducing morbidity. At the other extreme, excluding only disease-unrelated life-extension costs for ethical reasons would require-again for reasons of consistency-the exclusion of health gains due to treatment of unrelated diseases. Therefore, addressing ethical concerns regarding the inclusion of life-extension costs necessitates fundamental changes in the calculation of cost effectiveness.