Public Health Interventions with Harms and Benefits: A Graphical Framework for Evaluating Tradeoffs

Allison L. Pitt, Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert and Margaret L. Brandeau
Additional contact information
Allison L. Pitt: Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert: Stanford Health Policy, Centers for Health Policy and Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Margaret L. Brandeau: Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Medical Decision Making, 2020, vol. 40, issue 8, 978-989

Abstract: Background Evaluations of public health interventions typically report benefits and harms aggregated over the population. However, benefits and harms are not always evenly distributed. Examining disaggregated outcomes enables decision makers to consider health benefits and harms accruing to both intended intervention recipients and others in the population. Methods We provide a graphical framework for categorizing and comparing public health interventions that examines the distribution of benefit and harm between and within population subgroups for a single intervention and compares distributions of harm and benefit for multiple interventions. We demonstrate the framework through a case study of a hypothetical increase in the price of meat (5%, 10%, 25%, or 50%) that, via elasticity of demand, reduces consumption and consequently reduces body mass index. We examine how inequalities in benefits and harms (measured by quality-adjusted life-years) are distributed across a population of white and black males and females. Results A 50% meat price increase would yield the greatest net benefit to the population. However, because of reduced consumption among low-weight individuals, black males would bear disproportionate harm relative to the benefit they receive. With increasing meat price, the distribution of harm relative to benefit becomes less “internal†to those receiving benefit and more “distributed†to those not receiving commensurate benefit. When we segment the population by sex only, this result does not hold. Conclusions Disaggregating harms and benefits to understand their differential impact on subgroups can strongly affect which decision alternative is deemed optimal, as can the approach to segmenting the population. Our framework provides a useful tool for illuminating key tradeoffs relevant to harm-averse decision makers and those concerned with both equity and efficiency.

Keywords: distributional effects; harm aversion; health technology assessment; multicriteria decision analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20960458 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:8:p:978-989

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20960458

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().