Measuring Baseline Health with Individual Health-Adjusted Life Expectancy (iHALE)

INTRODUCTION

All health systems have budget constraints and limited resources. Methods for health economic evaluations, like cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), are essential in health policy and are extensively used to rank health services by their expected efficiency [1]. However, few people endorse strict health maximisation [2], and fairness criteria may be included in such rankings [3, 4]. For example, one may give higher priority to interventions that target those with the most severe illnesses [5-7], especially in relation to decisions about the pricing and reimbursement of new medicines and devices [8, 9]. Policy makers in countries like Norway [10] and the Netherlands [11] have already started using severity measurement methods.

In this paper, the terms “illness”, “disease” and “condition” are used interchangeably, and include all adverse medical conditions, such as injuries, syndromes, birth defects, and infections. The term “severity of illness” involves both substantial value disagreements and a wide range of interpretations [12, 13]. To sidestep misunderstandings, we use the concept of “baseline health at disease onset” rather than severity of illness. Three perspectives on how to measure baseline health dominate in the literature. One view considers current health [14], one considers health over future years [15], and one considers health over the lifetime [16-18]. In this paper we conform to the latter, and focus on how a particular illness is expected to affect the total lifetime health achieved by an individual before they die [18]. This includes both the past (before disease onset) and future (after disease onset). Clinical definitions of severity of illness often include urgency, but our definition of baseline health does not. Urgency pertains to the timing of treatment and how this influences the prognosis of a condition. Conditions with a low baseline health at onset, like multiple sclerosis in young patients, do not necessarily require urgent interventions.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study provides critical summary measures of population health that are relevant when evaluating and comparing health systems [3]. These measures include disability-adjusted life years (DALY) and healthy life expectancy (HALE). DALYs are calculated for a set of diseases by summing the years of life lost (YLL) compared to a reference life expectancy and years lived with disability (YLD) in one particular year due to each disease [19]. For a particular condition and a particular year, YLL is the sum of all the years lost for the individuals who died from the condition during that year. The reference is the age-adjusted life expectancy (LE) from a life table derived from the mortality rates in the locations with the lowest age-specific mortality in the GBD study [20]. YLD, on the other hand, is the sum of the health loss due to the condition during the year across people living with the condition [21]. DALYs aggregated from YLLs and YLDs are a measure of overall population burden. A major limitation of these measures is that they do not capture how the condition affects the distribution of baseline health at onset across individuals in the population.

We propose a framework where this distribution is an integral part. A key component in this framework is the new metric individual Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (iHALE). In this paper, we present a method for calculating iHALE, and how to use iHALE to rank conditions according to baseline health at onset. We consider four conditions and six countries to illustrate how and why our framework is relevant for priority setting in health care and the measurement of population health.

METHODS

Part I: Estimating disease-specific individual life expectancy

The individual life expectancy (iLE) of an individual is simply where “age” is the age of the individual and LY^future is the number of life years each individual has left to live at their respective age. LY^future is not known until the individual actually dies, but its distribution can be estimated as follows. First, we define Y, the maximum age in our lifetable, by setting the chance of surviving from age Y to Y+1 to zero. Then we calculate the number of people who are expected to die at different ages in the Y years to come. This can be done using an upper diagonal (Y+1)× (Y+1) matrix,

In each element of ℕ_iLE, N_c,d, the c denotes the current age and the d denotes the age at death. For example, N_3,12 is the number of today’s 3-year-olds who will die at age 12. Each N_c,d is calculated using standard lifetable methodology [22], based on the assumption that q(age) remains the same in the future. In other words, {N_c,O, N_c,1,…,N_c,Y} is the distribution of age at death for an individual with current age c. We see that summing the rows, , yields the population age structure (pop). Further, summing the columns, , gives the number of people that we expect to die at age d. That is, the number of people for which iLE.= d. The sum ∑_c ∑_d N_c,d is the total current number of people at all ages. In our calculations, we use Y=99. Note that it follows from the assumption of a static q(age) that average LY^future is the same as LE. From (1) we see that iLE is dominated by LY^future for young children, and by age for very old people.

Before we break the analysis into diseases, we start by analyzing total figures for one country, as this is familiar for most readers and perhaps more intuitive. Figure 1 shows the distribution of iLE for all age groups in the total population of the United States in 2017. In the left panel, individuals alive in 2017 are ranked by their current age, and the right panel ranks them by iLE. Now we can see that around 22 million people (7%) in the US have iLE < 60 years. As expected, the proportion is much higher in Ethiopia (16%) and Haiti (20%). Note that by simply focusing on LE, we would know nothing about such distributional characteristics.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Distribution of individual life expectancy (iLE) for the total US population (2017). Left panel: Distribution by age. On the x-axis, −100 corresponds to the year 1917, and +100 corresponds to the year 2117. Years lived before 2017 are observed, whereas years lived after 2017 are expected.

Right panel: Distribution by iLE.

For individuals who get a disease, D, at a particular age, (1) becomes

is calculated similarly to LY^future. Instead of pop(age), we use I_D(age) × pop (age) (Table 1), and instead of mortality rates for the general population, we use those of individuals with condition D, q_D (Table 1). For diseases with very high mortality, will be small for all ages, and iLE_D will therefore to a large extent depend on age alone. If the excess mortality is low, the situation resembles that of (1).

Figure 2 shows the estimated iLE distribution among the 10,600 people with incident cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 1,950 people with incident cases of acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) in the United States in 2017. The LE was 67.9 for AML and 67.6 for ALL. However, as the figure shows, the mean age of onset in the United States in 2017 was 62.5 for AML and 45.6 for ALL, and mean was 5.4 years, whereas was 22 years. Once again, we see that important information about baseline health is lost when focusing on LE only.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Individual life expectancy (iLE) for individuals who got leukemia in the US in 2017, sorted according to age at onset. Left panel: Distribution for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Right panel: Distribution for acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL).

Part II. Adjust for morbidity

Non-fatal morbidities should also be taken into account when assessing baseline health at disease onset, so that one can compare across fatal and non-fatal diseases with different impacts on health loss. This includes estimating health adjusted age (HAA) and future health adjusted life years (HALY^future). Expanding on (4), we get

In this section we will explain how to estimate HAA^past and using the background disability, dw, and the excess disease-specific disability, dw_D (Table 1).

Figure 3 outlines the conceptual structure of the iHALE method, where both past and future health is summed for each individual with one of the four diseases AML, ALL, epilepsy and schizophrenia.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Outline of the conceptual structure of the individual Health Adjusted Life Expectancy (iHALE) method, where we calculate the sum of past health and expected future health for five individuals with different diseases (AML, ALL, epilepsy and schizophrenia). For a disease D, the dashed black line is background mortality, and the blue line is background mortality added to the excess risk of death caused by D. The orange area is background health loss due to disability (dw), and the red area is health loss caused by D (dw_D). The grey area is iHALE_D. The sum of the grey, orange and red areas constitute iLE. The top solid black line gives a period after the onset of D when the person had a period of increased mortality (PIM). The bottom line gives a similar period of increased disability (PID).

HAA^past is calculated as follows, where, c is current age and dw(i) is the background disability from age “i” to “i+1” (Table 1). We assume that conditions are independent and that past dw are the same regardless of current disease status.

To account for future non-fatal health loss caused by a disease, D, we use disease specific excess disability, dw_D, and mortality, q_D, as calculated in Table 1. However, mortality risk is returned from q_D to q after a period of increased mortality (PIM), and morbidity returns from dw_D to dw after a period of increased disability (PID) (Table 1 expands on PIM and PID).

In Figure 3 we see from the AML examples how two different persons may fare under the same PIM and PID. Person 1 survives long enough that both mortality and morbidity return to those of the background population, and then dies at age 63 from a different cause, whereas Person 2 dies during the PIM.

Future health adjusted life years, as a function of current age and age at death, is where c is current age and d is age at death. As in (6), is the disability weight from age “i” to “i+1”. However, because we estimate future health loss, the disability weight must be adjusted during PID. This means that the disability increased for a period of PID years after onset before returning to that of the general population (Table 1).

We next set out to estimate the iHALE distribution in a population. This is done in several steps. First, we create one matrix for past health, and one for future health. The matrix for past health is where HAA^past is from (6). Because the row number represents current age, we see that the elements are the same within each row. In other words, your past health only depends on your current age, and not your future age at death (column number).

In the matrix for future health, we need to account for both current age and age at death.

Using from (7), we get

Adding past and future health yields

In , row number c gives iHALE for individuals who are c years old, whereas column number d gives the iHALE for individuals who will die at age d. As opposed to the discrete iLE, iHALE is continuous. For example, one individual who dies at age 80 may have an iHALE equal to 67.3 healthy years, whereas another could have achieved 67.4 or 67.5. Because we do not have access to data on individuals, every individual with the same condition and the same age of onset is assumed to have the same iHALE distribution. In ℕ_iLE from (2), we obtained these distributions by considering the rows. This information is not available in , but we may create a new matrix, , where the elements correspond to those of ℕ_iLE, but are calculated using instead of q (Table 1).

Pairing all elements in with the corresponding element in yields the iHALE distribution for all values of c and d for the disease D.

In we use incidence to identify those who get the disease D each year, which is especially useful for life-long conditions. See Figure A1 (Appendix) for details on incidence assumptions that are being used in iHALE calculations for AML and ALL in the US.

Figure 4 shows that even though average iHALE is similar for AML (58.7) and ALL (57.7), the distribution across individuals is different. For example, in the US we expect 4.7% of individuals with ALL to have iHALE < 20 (T20), compared with only 2.1% for individuals with AML. Hence, considering risk of a low baseline health, individuals with ALL would be worse off. Still, the 75^th percentile (Q3) of iHALE for individuals with ALL (71.3) was higher than in people with AML (67.9), so with respect to chance of a high baseline health individuals with AML would be the worse off. Again, this highlights the need for distributional concerns in policy making.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Distribution of individual Healthy Adjusted Life Expectancy (iHALE) for AML and ALL in the United States in 2017.

RESULTS

Table 2 shows average iHALE, T20, Q1 and Q3 for ALL, AML, schizophrenia and epilepsy in six countries (see Appendix Table A4 for 200 NCDI conditions). Rank orders of the four conditions varied both between countries and according to measure of who is worse off.

The iHALE distribution for schizophrenia was similar across the six settings, although Japan stands out in a positive manner. The difference in average iHALE for schizophrenia between the US and Japan was larger than the difference between the US and Ethiopia (Haiti 40.7, Ethiopia 41.1, China 45.7, Mexico 44.4, US 43.5, Japan 48.6). The same applied to the quartiles. T20, the proportion of people with iHALE <20, was low across countries for schizophrenia, which is reasonable, as schizophrenia rarely manifests in childhood. Variability in average iHALE for epilepsy between countries was high (Ethiopia 36.8, Haiti 39.5, Mexico 53.5, China 56.6, US 58.8, Japan 64.3). In addition, there is much more unequal iHALE distribution for epilepsy in countries with low average iHALE (difference between quartiles (Q3-Q1) was 19.9 in Ethiopia, 17.9 in Haiti, 15.2 in China, 14.9 in Mexico, 13.3 in Japan, and 13.2 in the US). Further, only 0.6% of the Japanese had iHALE under 20, but the number was 14.0% among Ethiopians and 8.4% among Haitians.

DISCUSSION

According to fairness concerns, limited health care resources should be allocated to interventions that benefit the worse off in society [5-7, 18]. In this paper, we present a quantitative method for identifying the worse off by estimating the distribution of lifetime health across individuals in the same disease category. We show how two conditions, ALL and AML, with similar LEs and average iHALEs have substantially different distributions of iHALE. In addition, we show how iHALE varies across countries, and demonstrate how the iHALE distribution captures different aspects of the fact that diseases are typically more severe in low-income than in high-income countries. Our new framework important for priority setting because it can be used to assign extra value to health gains from interventions targeting the worse off. The relevance of iHALE is particularly good for preventive interventions for a disease where you are likely to capture benefits across a range of ages (for example treating strep throat in school children to prevent rheumatic heart disease).

Sullivan, in 1971, suggested how morbidity adjustment could be done for LE to get HALE by modifying the standard life table model to estimate the expected duration of a condition by exposing a birth cohort of a disease specific mortality and disability rate over a lifetime [22]. Sullivan’s method estimates average expected years of healthy life rather than the distribution of iHALE between individuals as done in this paper.

In this article we present iHALE as an achievement measure, but it may be more intuitive to present baseline health at disease onset as a shortfall from what individuals could potentially achieve. iHALE could be converted to an individual gap-measure (e.g. iDALY) by using the YLL method applied in GBD. Shortfall in life years could be calculated for each individual at disease onset by using the lowest mortality by age in the world as a reference. Shortfall in disabilities could use the lowest YLD rates across countries as a reference for disability shortfall. However, disease shortfall measures are beyond the scope of this paper.

PIM and PID, as presented in this paper, have some limitations. They could be different for the same condition across settings, as would be the case for conditions, like HIV, that can be treated or controlled more effectively in some countries than in others. Part of these differences should be captured in the excess mortality differences between countries in our current analysis, but the durations of the periods are also likely to vary. Additionally, PIM and PID do not capture the nature of conditions where mortality and morbidity have complicated temporal patterns. For example, the peak increase in mortality risk for HIV patients is about a decade after onset. At a conceptual level, these obstacles are easy to handle. One simply must estimate PIM and PID for all conditions under consideration in all relevant settings. However, the empirical task of getting precise PIM and PID estimates is not trivial.

Understanding the underlying reasons for differences in the distribution of iHALE can have policy implications. Observed differences in the distribution of iHALE between countries can originate from a number of reasons. It is important to note that as a measure of lifetime health among people with a specific condition, iHALE is influenced by mortality risk and morbidity from other causes, as well as by the age at which the disease occurs. Thus, variation in iHALE could be caused from differences in demography and epidemiology at the country level, or from variations in access to health care that underlie differences in disease-specific morbidity or mortality rates. The relative contribution of each of these differences to the overall difference in iHALE between countries depends on which countries are being compared. How to quantify the role of each factor is discussed further in Appendix (Figure A2).

To measure the true disease-specific baseline health distribution, the past health would be calculated using observed past disability for individuals. The data available for our calculations were limited in several ways. There was no individual-level morbidity and mortality information, so we used population averages. This meant that we were unable to account for correlation between illnesses. For example, people who die of a car accident at age 45 may be different on average from those who die of a myocardial infarction at age 45 regarding lifestyle (smoking, exercise, diet) and biology (metabolism, genetics), which could affect the risk of other morbidities. As a result, our estimates of iHALE may be high (overestimate baseline health) for illnesses that are often experienced with comorbidities because they do not capture the higher burden from the associated illnesses. Conversely, our estimates of iHALE may be low (underestimate baseline health) for illnesses that have few comorbidities. These limitations are especially evident in mental health conditions. The GBD estimates do not attribute any mortality to mental health disorders; however, we know that patients with mental health disorders have higher mortality risk compared to the general population [23-25]. Our schizophrenia iHALE results are additionally limited by distributions of disability weights that do not vary along with treatment availability across countries [26]. The limited time series available from the GBD meant that we did not have complete historical average disability rates. For consistency, we used age-specific rates of disability for the calculations of past health; however, health achievement in a real population would use historical disability information if available.

CONCLUSION

Increasing availability of demographic and epidemiologic data creates opportunities for quantifying the baseline health at disease onset to guide priority setting in health care. Policy makers, supported by the ethical literature, are concerned about giving higher priority to the worse off. However, the impact of such fairness concerns to health policy does not match the impact cost-effectiveness analysis has had on policy the last decades. Data availability and lack of rigorous methods for quantifying the baseline health at disease onset are likely contributing factors to the negligence of the worse off in de facto health care priority setting. Here we have presented a method for calculating iHALE and illustrate with examples how and why a metric that is sensitive to distribution is relevant for priority setting in health care and the measurement of population health. We lay the foundations for undertaking detailed calculations of disease-specific iHALE in multiple countries.