Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 14, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
The Inequality-Adjusted Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio
Richard Cookson1, Gunjeet Kaur2, Ieva Skarda3
1Center for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Objectives:
To adjust the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to capture trade-offs between maximization of total health and impact on social inequality in health.
Methods:
We used equity weights derived from a social welfare function to calculate an inequality-adjusted ICER, both indirectly and directly. We demonstrated equivalence of decision rules based on the inequality-adjusted ICER and equity-weighted net health benefit. We defined a health inequality modifier (HIM) to the cost-effectiveness threshold-the ratio of the ICER to the inequality-adjusted ICER-and illustrated its application to hypothetical treatments for 1336 diseases in England. We used hospital admissions to estimate disease prevalence and health benefits by 5 social deprivation groups, assumed no social gradient in health opportunity costs and examined "high," "medium," and "low" health inequality aversion scenarios based on UK general public sample estimates.
Results:
Assuming medium inequality aversion, the interpercentile HIM range was 0.96 to 1.18, indicating that inequality adjustment would reduce the threshold by 4% at the bottom percentile and increase it by 18% at the top percentile of diseases. The threshold was reduced by at least 10% for only 2 of 1336 (0.15%) diseases and raised by at least 10% for 142 of 1336 (10.6%). High inequality aversion widened the interpercentile HIM range to 0.93 to 1.31.
Conclusions:
Use of the inequality-adjusted ICER would effectively modify the cost-effectiveness threshold to consider health inequality impact. In England, the modification would rarely exceed 30%, even assuming high inequality aversion, but could exceed 10% for about one-tenth of diseases assuming medium aversion.
More Related Videos
05:43Author Spotlight: Improving Lesion Contiguity in Pulmonary Vein Isolation via Proactive Esophageal Cooling
Published on: April 19, 2024
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
Relative Risk
Odds Ratio
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Dose-Response Relationship: Potency and Efficacy
Bias in Epidemiological Studies