Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE

Health systems that aim to secure universal patient access through a scheme of prepayments-whether through taxes, social insurance, or a combination of the two-need to make decisions on the scope of coverage that they guarantee: such tasks often falling to a priority-setting agency. This article analyzes the decision-making processes at one such agency in particular-the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-and appraises their ethical justifiability. In particular, we consider the extent to which NICE's model can be justified on the basis of Rawls's conception of "reasonableness." This test shares certain features with the well-known Accountability for Reasonableness (AfR) model but also offers an alternative to it, being concerned with how far the values used by priority-setting agencies such as NICE meet substantive conditions of reasonableness irrespective of their procedural virtues. We find that while there are areas in which NICE's processes may be improved, NICE's overall approach to evaluating health technologies and setting priorities for health-care coverage is a reasonable one, making it an exemplar for other health-care systems facing similar coverage dilemmas. In so doing we offer both a framework for analysing the ethical justifiability of NICE's processes and one that might be used to evaluate others.

Origin and Goals of the “Gender Symmetry” Workshop

This article provides a brief account of the historical background to the Gender Symmetry Workshop and describes its major goals. The Workshop is a successor to an earlier workshop co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Justice in 1998, namely the Workshop on Building Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to Violence Against Women. Some key issues that were left unresolved in that workshop provided the rationale for holding the Gender Symmetry Workshop. The Workshop was designed to cover three topic areas: (1) a typology of violence, (2) measurement issues, and (3) women’s use of violence.

Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method

Objective: Cost-utility analysis is gaining importance as a tool for setting priorities in health care. The approach requires quality-of-life weights on a scale from 0.00 (corresponding to death) to 1.00 (corresponding to perfect health). Different methods and perspectives of the evaluators tend to give different results. Time trade-off (TTO) is the most commonly used method to elicit quality-of-life weights for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). How reliable are the results of this method, when limited to one specific perspective, as input for cost-utility analysis?

Method: Systematic literature review of empirical studies in which the TTO is elicited by the respondent on their own behalf.

Results: In 56 papers, quality-of-life weights for 102 diagnostic groups were given. Ranking of the diagnostic groups according to their quality-of-life weights had no apparent relation to severity. One specific diagnostic group was assigned quality-of-life weights ranging from 0.39 to 0.84. Altogether, 57% of respondents did not trade any life-time at all in exchange for health improvements. The distributions studied were skewed towards 1.00 and were bimodal without a central tendency. The correlation between the TTO and related methods was generally weak. Possible explanations for the poor empirical properties of the TTO are inappropriate use of the method, lack of representative samples, or that the TTO does not measure what it claims to measure.

Conclusion: In the light of these findings, the TTO elicited from the patient perspective, as currently practised, should not be used as an input for QALYs or for comparisons of diagnostic groups.

High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context

Priority setting and resource allocation, or PSRA, are key functions of executive teams in healthcare organizations. Yet decision-makers often base their choices on historical patterns of resource distribution or political pressures. Our aim was to provide leaders with guidance on how to improve PSRA practice, by creating organizational contexts which enable high performance. We carried out in-depth case studies of six Canadian healthcare organizations to obtain from healthcare leaders their understanding of the concept of high performance in PSRA and the factors which contribute to its achievement. Individual and group interviews were carried out (n = 62) with senior managers, middle managers and Board members. Site observations and document review were used to assist researchers in interpreting the interview data. Qualitative data were analyzed iteratively with the literature on empirical examples of PSRA practice, in order to develop a framework of high performance in PSRA. The framework consists of four domains - structures, processes, attitudes and behaviours, and outcomes - within which are 19 specific elements. The emergent themes derive from case studies in different kinds of health organizations (urban/rural, small/large) across Canada. The elements can serve as a checklist for 'high performance' in PSRA. This framework provides a means by which decision-makers in healthcare might assess their practice and identify key areas for improvement. The findings are likely generalizable, certainly within Canada but also across countries. This work constitutes, to our knowledge, the first attempt to present a full package of elements comprising high performance in health care PSRA.

Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.

Applying a global justice lens to health systems research ethics: an initial exploration

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches.

Predictive validation of modeled health technology assessment claims: lessons from NICE

The use of cost-effectiveness modeling to prioritize healthcare spending has become a key foundation of UK government policy. Although the preferred method of evaluation-cost-utility analysis-is not without its critics, it represents a standard approach that can arguably be used to assess relative value for money across a range of disease types and interventions. A key limitation of economic modeling, however, is that its conclusions hinge on the input assumptions, many of which are derived from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses that cannot be reliably linked to real-world performance of treatments in a broader clinical context. This means that spending decisions are frequently based on artificial constructs that may project costs and benefits that are significantly at odds with those that are achievable in reality. There is a clear agenda to carry out some form of predictive validation for the model claims, in order to assess not only whether the spending decisions made can be justified post hoc, but also to ensure that budgetary expenditure continues to be allocated in the most rational way. To date, however, no timely, effective system to carry out this testing has been implemented, with the consequence that there is little objective evidence as to whether the prioritization decisions made are actually living up to expectations. This article reviews two unfulfilled initiatives that have been carried out in the UK over the past 20 years, each of which had the potential to address this objective, and considers why they failed to deliver the expected outcomes.

Current research funding methods dumb down health care and rehabilitation for disabled people and aging population: a call for a change

Health care systems in Western societies are faced with two major challenges: aging populations and the growing burden of chronic conditions. This translates into more persons with disabilities and the need for more Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) services. We raise the point of how these emerging needs are faced by the actual research funding. We briefly present the results of an analysis we made about research funding by the Italian National Health Service as an interesting case study, since it relates to Italy (the financer) and the United States, where National Institutes of Health (NIH) reviewers were identified according to their classification of research topics. The topics of potentially greatest interest for aging Western societies, like chronicity, disability and rehabilitation, were among those least often funded and considered in the traditional method of financing research projects. These results could be based on those PRM peculiarities that make the specialty different from all other classical biomedical specialties, namely the bio-psycho-social approach and its specific research methodologies. Moreover, PRM researchers are spread among the different topics as usually classified, and it is probable that PRM projects are judged by non-PRM reviewers. There are at least two possible ways in which research can be better placed to meet the emerging needs of Western societies (chronicity, disability and consequently also rehabilitation). One is to create specific keywords on these topics so as to improve the match between researchers and reviewers; the second is to allocate specific funds to research in these areas. In fact, the not coherence between emerging needs and research priorities have already been periodically addressed in the past with specific "political" and/or "social" initiatives, when researchers were forced to respond to new emergencies: some historical examples include cancer or HIV and viral diseases or the recent Ebola outbreak.

Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: a multicriteria optimisation perspective

In this paper we discuss the prioritisation of healthcare projects where there is a concern about health inequalities, but the decision maker is reluctant to make explicit quantitative value judgements and the data systems only allow the measurement of health at an aggregate level. Our analysis begins with a standard welfare economic model of healthcare resource allocation. We show how - under the assumption that the healthcare projects under consideration have a small impact on individual health--the problem can be reformulated as one of finding a particular subset of the class of efficient solutions to an implied multicriteria optimisation problem. Algorithms for finding such solutions are readily available, and we demonstrate our approach through a worked example of treatment for clinical depression.

Impact of a national system for waitlist prioritization: the experience with NIKE and cataract surgery in Sweden

PURPOSE

  To evaluate waiting times for first-eye cataract surgery in Sweden following widespread adoption of the Nationell Indikationsmodell for Kataraktextraktion (NIKE) tool for prioritizing patients for cataract surgery.

METHODS

  Waiting times for all first-eye cataract surgeries in Sweden in 2009-2011 were identified from the Swedish National Cataract Register. Waiting times were compared according to demographic, clinical and NIKE indication group for surgery. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to determine factors associated with waiting times less than the 3-month Government guarantee period.

RESULTS

  There were 141,070 first-eye cataract surgeries in 2009 to 2011; an annual increase of around 6%. Over the study period, mean waiting times decreased across all NIKE groups. The proportion waiting <3 months for surgery also increased across all NIKE groups. Surgery within 3 months of waitlisting was more likely for patients with a NIKE 1 indication classification (most need for surgery), in later years, male patients, younger patients and patients with a preoperative visual acuity in the better eye worse than 6/24.

CONCLUSIONS

  Prioritizing patients for cataract surgery using NIKE reduces waiting times for those with the greatest need.

The emergence of a global right to health norm--the unresolved case of universal access to quality emergency obstetric care

BACKGROUND

The global response to HIV suggests the potential of an emergent global right to health norm, embracing shared global responsibility for health, to assist policy communities in framing the obligations of the domestic state and the international community. Our research explores the extent to which this global right to health norm has influenced the global policy process around maternal health rights, with a focus on universal access to emergency obstetric care.

METHODS

In examining the extent to which arguments stemming from a global right to health norm have been successful in advancing international policy on universal access to emergency obstetric care, we looked at the period from 1985 to 2013 period. We adopted a qualitative case study approach applying a process-tracing methodology using multiple data sources, including an extensive literature review and limited key informant interviews to analyse the international policy agenda setting process surrounding maternal health rights, focusing on emergency obstetric care. We applied John Kingdon's public policy agenda setting streams model to analyse our data.

RESULTS

Kingdon's model suggests that to succeed as a mobilising norm, the right to health could work if it can help bring the problem, policy and political streams together, as it did with access to AIDS treatment. Our analysis suggests that despite a normative grounding in the right to health, prioritisation of the specific maternal health entitlements remains fragmented.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite United Nations recognition of maternal mortality as a human rights issue, the relevant policy communities have not yet managed to shift the policy agenda to prioritise the global right to health norm of shared responsibility for realising access to emergency obstetric care. The experience of HIV advocates in pushing for global solutions based on right to health principles, including participation, solidarity and accountability; suggest potential avenues for utilising right to health based arguments to push for policy priority for universal access to emergency obstetric care in the post-2015 global agenda.

[Priority setting for the health technology assessment]

The aim of this article is to analyze the different approaches of priority setting for health technology assessments (HTA). First, the paper identifies the reasons that make necessary to establish priorities and its importance for the success of the HTA models. Second, it studies the main stages that consider the determination of priorities based on the analysis of the models currently used by HTA agencies of developed countries. In the third place, the article describes the different criteria, methods of scoring and deliberation bodies included in the mechanism of priority setting of those agencies. Finally, the paper concludes mentioning lessons from the international experience that potentially can be an input for the design of a model of priority setting for HTA in our country.

Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada

Global climate change is known to result in the emergence or re-emergence of some infectious diseases. Reliable methods to identify the infectious diseases of humans and animals and that are most likely to be influenced by climate are therefore required. Since different priorities will affect the decision to address a particular pathogen threat, decision makers need a standardised method of prioritisation. Ranking methods and Multi-Criteria Decision approaches provide such a standardised method and were employed here to design two different pathogen prioritisation tools. The opinion of 64 experts was elicited to assess the importance of 40 criteria that could be used to prioritise emerging infectious diseases of humans and animals in Canada. A weight was calculated for each criterion according to the expert opinion. Attributes were defined for each criterion as a transparent and repeatable method of measurement. Two different Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis tools were tested, both of which used an additive aggregation approach. These were an Excel spreadsheet tool and a tool developed in software 'M-MACBETH'. The tools were trialed on nine 'test' pathogens. Two different methods of criteria weighting were compared, one using fixed weighting values, the other using probability distributions to account for uncertainty and variation in expert opinion. The ranking of the nine pathogens varied according to the weighting method that was used. In both tools, using both weighting methods, the diseases that tended to rank the highest were West Nile virus, Giardiasis and Chagas, while Coccidioidomycosis tended to rank the lowest. Both tools are a simple and user friendly approach to prioritising pathogens according to climate change by including explicit scoring of 40 criteria and incorporating weighting methods based on expert opinion. They provide a dynamic interactive method that can help to identify pathogens for which a full risk assessment should be pursued.