Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall

Severity and Temporality in Healthcare Priority Setting - A Case for A Condition-specific Affectable Time-neutral Approach

Priority setting of scarce resources in healthcare is high on the agenda of most healthcare systems implying a need to develop robust foundations for making fair allocation decisions. One central factor for such decisions in needs-based systems, following both empirical studies and theoretical analyses, is severity. However, it has been noted that severity is an under-theorized concept. One such aspect is how severity should relate to temporality. There is a rich discussion on temporality and distributive justice, however, this discussion needs to be adapted to the practical and ethical requirements of healthcare priority setting principles at mid-level. In this article, we analyze how temporal aspects should be taken into account when assessing severity as a modifier for cost-effectiveness. We argue that when assessing the severity of a condition, we have reason to look at complete conditions from a time-neutral perspective, meaning that we take the full affectable stretch of the condition into account without modifying severity as patients move through the temporal stretch and without discounting the future. We do not find support for taking the 'shape' of a condition into account per se, e.g. whether the severity has a declining or inclining curve, or that severity is intermittent rather than continuous. In order to take severity seriously, we argue that we have reason to apply a quantified approach where every difference in severity should impact on priority setting. In conclusion, we find that this approach is practically useful in actual priority setting.

Equity considerations for the implementation of health insurance benefit package in Ethiopia: result of expert Delphi exercise

BACKGROUND

Efficiency, equity and financial risk protection are key health systems objectives. Equitable distribution of health care is among the priority strategic initiative of the government of Ethiopia. However, data on the distribution of interventions benefits or on disease burden disaggregated by subpopulations to guide health care priority setting is not available in Ethiopia.

METHODS

Aligned with policy documents, we identified the following groups to be the worse off in the Ethiopian context: under-five children, women of reproductive age, the poor, and rural residents. We used the Delphi technique by a panel of 28 experts to assign a score for 253 diseases/conditions over a period of two days, in phases. The expert panel represented different institutes and professional mix. Experts assigned a score 1 to 4; where 4 indicates disease/condition predominantly affecting the poor and rural residents and 1 indicates a condition more prevalent among the wealthy and urban residents. Subsequently, the average equity score was computed for each disease/condition.

RESULTS

The average scores ranged from 1.11 (for vitiligo) to 3.79 (for obstetric fistula). We standardized the scores to be bounded between 1 and 2; 1 the lowest equity score and 2 the highest equity score. The scores for each disease/condition were then assigned to their corresponding interventions. We used these equity scores to adjust the CEA values for each of the interventions. To adjust the CEA values for equity, we multiplied the health benefits (the denominator of the cost-effectiveness value) of each intervention by the corresponding equity scores, resulting in equity adjusted CEA values. The equity adjusted CEA was then used to rank the interventions using a league table.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi method can be useful in generating equity scores for prioritizing health interventions where disaggregated data on the distribution of diseases or access to interventions by subpopulation groups are not available.

Severity and death

This article discusses the relationship between two theories about the badness of death, the Life-Comparative Account and the Gradualist Account, and two methods of operationalizing severity in health care priority setting, Absolute Shortfall and Proportional Shortfall. The aim is that theories about the badness of death can influence and inform the idea of the basis of severity as a priority setting criterion. I argue that there are strong similarities between the Life-Comparative Account and Absolute Shortfall, and since the Life-Comparative Account is one of the most reasonable accounts of the badness of death, this provides some support for using Absolute Shortfall. I also argue that it is difficult to find support for Proportional Shortfall from theories about the badness of death, and also, that it is difficult to find support for Gradualist Account from theories about severity.

A QALY is [still] a QALY is [still] a QALY? : Evaluating proportional shortfall as the answer to the problem of equity in healthcare allocations

Despite clinical evidence of drug superiority, therapeutic modalities, like combination immunotherapy, are mostly considered cost-ineffective due to their high costs per life year(s) gained. This paper, taking an ethical stand, reevaluates the standard cost-effectiveness analysis with that of the more recent justice-enhanced methods and concludes by pointing out the shortcomings of the current methodologies.

Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES

Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children.

METHODS

We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO.

RESULTS

There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

Reference-dependent age weighting of quality-adjusted life years

People do not only care about maximizing health gains but also about their distribution. For example, they give more weight to younger patients than older patients. This pilot study aims to investigate if age weighting is reinforced by loss aversion if young people are falling behind one's perceived 'normal' quality of life (QoL), while older people do not. We apply a person trade-off method in a large representative sample (n = 990) to estimate age weighting factors. We also measure QoL levels that individuals regard as 'normal' for different ages, serving as reference points. We observe a considerable amount of age weighting, with 20-year-old patients on average receiving 1.7 times as much weight as 80-year-old patients. Perceived 'normal' QoL rapidly decreases with age of a patient. Older people are more optimistic about what constitutes 'normal QoL' than younger people, but they express a faster decline in normal QoL due to aging. Respondents who view all improvements to be gain enlarging show the least age weighting, but loss aversion cannot explain the results. Still, one's age-related reference level is an important predictor of age weights. Given the explorative nature of this study, further studies are called for to generate more robust evidence.

Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) play a particularly important role in the reimbursement decisions of health technologies in countries with limited healthcare resources. Our goal is to develop a scientifically solid proposal for a revised cost-effectiveness threshold, as part of the planned review of the Hungarian health economic guidance.

METHODS

The Threshold Working Group of the Hungarian Health Economics Association performed a targeted review on CETs in European countries. International trends on CETs served as a basis for our recommendation, which was discussed at the Association's workshop and deliberated at an expert committee meeting with representatives from the national health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare payer bodies, and academic HTA centres.

RESULTS

The current Hungarian CET is one of the highest among European countries relative to GDP per capita, and even higher in nominal value than the CET applied by NICE. As opposed to the current, single Hungarian threshold, other European countries apply multiple thresholds. The Working Group recommends that Hungary should also apply multiple CETs in the range of 1.5-3 times GDP per capita with stratification according to the relative quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the new technology. In addition, multiple CETs in the range of 3-10 times GDP per capita is recommended for technologies in rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

CETs should be aligned with the country's economic performance and should reflect societal preferences. Our recommendation may increase the efficiency of healthcare resource allocation in Hungary by strengthening the role of HTA in the reimbursement decisions and favouring new technologies with higher QALY gain.

Assessing the Value of Nusinersen for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Comparative Analysis of Reimbursement Submission and Appraisal in European Countries

Background: Nusinersen is an orphan drug intended for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a severe genetic neuromuscular disorder. Considering the very high costs of orphan drugs and the expected market entry of cell and gene therapies, there is increased interest in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for orphan drugs. This study explores the role of the economic evaluation and budget impact analysis on the reimbursement of nusinersen. Methods: Appraisal reports for nusinersen were retrieved from reimbursement and HTA agencies in Belgium, Canada, France, England and Wales, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States. Detailed information was extracted on the economic evaluation, the budget impact, the overall reimbursement decision, and the managed entry agreement (MEA). Costs were adjusted for inflation and currency. Results: Overall, the reports included limited data on budget impact, excluding information on the sources of data for cost and patient estimates. Only three jurisdictions reported on total budget impact, estimated between 30 and 40 million euros per year. For early-onset SMA, the incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (ICER) ranged from €464,891 to €6,399,097 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for nusinersen versus standard of care. For later-onset SMA, the ICER varied from €493,756 to €10,611,936 per QALY. Although none of the jurisdictions found nusinersen to be cost-effective, reimbursement was granted in each jurisdiction. Remarkably, only four reports included arguments in favor of reimbursement. However, the majority of the jurisdictions set up an MEA, which may have promoted a positive reimbursement decision. Conclusion: There is a need for more transparency on the appraisal process and conditions included in the MEA. Additionally, by considering all relevant criteria explicitly during the appraisal process, decision-makers are in a better position to justify their allocation of funds among the rising number of orphan drugs that are coming to the market in the near future.

Varying Willingness to Pay Based on Severity of Illness: Impact on Health Technology Assessment Outcomes of Inpatient and Outpatient Drug Therapies in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Since 2015, Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN) has linked disease severity ranges of 0.10 to 0.40, 0.41 to 0.70, and 0.71 to 1.00 with willingness-to-pay (WTP) reference values of €20 000, €50 000, and €80 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. We sought to review whether these changes have affected ZIN health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes for specialist and outpatient drugs.

METHODS

ZIN recommendations for specialist and outpatient drugs published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2020, that included a pharmacoeconomic report were reviewed. Data were extracted on disease severity, proportional shortfall calculation, reported WTP reference value, outcomes related to the cost-effectiveness of the product, budget impact, and ZIN's recommendation including rationale for their advice.

RESULTS

A total of 51 HTAs were included. Of the 20 HTAs published before June 2015, a total of 9 received positive recommendations, 7 were conditionally reimbursed, and 4 received negative recommendations. None reported WTP reference values. Of the 31 evaluations published after June 2015, a total of 4 products received positive recommendations, 1 was conditionally approved, and 26 received negative recommendations initially. Most products (65%) reported disease severity to be >0.70.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 2015, most products have fallen within the highest category of disease severity. Although pre-2015 outcomes were varied, post-2015 products overwhelmingly received negative recommendations, and the proportion of products for which price negotiations were recommended has increased. These differences in outcomes may result from the introduction of an explicit WTP reference value, whether or not in combination with the severity-adjusted ranges, but may also reflect other national policy changes in 2015.

Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

There is growing interest in extending the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year framework beyond health. Using a critical interpretive synthesis approach, the objective was to review peer-reviewed literature that has discussed non-health outcomes within the context of quality-adjusted life-years and synthesise information into a thematic framework. Papers were identified through searches conducted in Web of Science, using forward citation searching. A critical interpretive synthesis allows for the development of interpretations (synthetic constructs) that go beyond those offered in the original sources. The final output of a critical interpretive synthesis is the synthesising argument, which integrates evidence from across studies into a coherent thematic framework. A concept map was developed to show the relationships between different types of non-health benefits. The critical interpretive synthesis was based on 99 papers. The thematic framework was constructed around four themes: (1) benefits affecting well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, capability and empowerment); (2) benefits derived from the process of healthcare delivery; (3) benefits beyond the recipient of care (spillover effects, externalities, option value and distributional benefits); and (4) benefits beyond the healthcare sector. There is a wealth of research concerning non-health benefits and the evaluative space of the quality-adjusted life-year. Further dialogue and debate are necessary to address conceptual and normative challenges, to explore the societal willingness to sacrifice health for benefits beyond health and to consider the equity implications of different courses of action.

Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients

OBJECTIVES

Decision-making frameworks that draw on economic evaluations increasingly use equity weights to facilitate a more equitable and fair allocation of healthcare resources. These weights can be attached to health gains or reflected in the monetary threshold against which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (new) health technologies are evaluated. Currently applied weights are based on different definitions of disease severity and do not account for age-related preferences in society. However, age has been shown to be an important equity-relevant characteristic. This study examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related quality of life (QOL) gains in relation to the disease severity and age of patients, and the outcome of the disease.

METHODS

We obtained WTP estimates by applying contingent-valuation tasks in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (n = 2023). We applied random-effects generalized least squares regression models to estimate the effect of patients' disease severity and age, size of QOL gains, disease outcome (full recovery/death 1 year after falling ill), and respondent characteristics on the WTP.

RESULTS

Respondents' WTP was higher for more severely ill and younger patients and for larger-sized QOL gains, but lower for patients who died. However, the relations were nonlinear and context dependent. Respondents with a lower age, who were male, had a higher household income, and a higher QOL stated a higher WTP for QOL gains.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that-if the aim is to align resource-allocation decisions in healthcare with societal preferences-currently applied equity weights do not suffice.

Prioritizing solutions to incorporate Prosthetics and Orthotics services into Iranian health benefits package: Using an analytic hierarchy process

INTRODUCTION

Health benefits package (HBP) is regarded as one of the main dimensions of health financing strategy. Even with increasing demands for prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) services to approximately 0.5% of the world's population, only 15% of vulnerable groups have the chance to make use of such benefits. Inadequate coverage of P&O services in the HBP is accordingly one of the leading reasons for this situation in many countries, including Iran.

AIMS

The main objective of this study was to find and prioritize solutions in order to facilitate and promote P&O services in the Iranian HBP.

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) research design was employed in this study.

METHODS

This study was conducted in two phases. First, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to retrieve potential solutions. Then an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) reflecting on seven criteria of acceptability, effectiveness, time, cost, feasibility, burden of disease, and fairness was performed to prioritize them.

RESULTS

In total, 26 individuals participated in semi-structured interviews and several policy solutions were proposed. Following the AHP, preventive interventions, infant-specific interventions, inpatient interventions, interventions until 6 years of age, and emergency interventions gained the highest priority to incorporate in the Iranian HBP.

CONCLUSION

A number of policy solutions were explored and prioritized for P&O services in the Iranian HBP. Our findings provide a framework for decision- and policy-makers in Iran and other countries aiming to curb the financial burdens of P&O users, especially in vulnerable groups.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches.

Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug’s health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers’ openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement.

Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Innovative Medicines: The Role of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Managed Entry Agreements in Practice and Policy

Through the years, solutions for accelerated access to innovative treatments are implemented in models of regulatory approvals, yet with limited data. Besides efficacy data, providing adequate safety data is key to transferring conditional marketing authorization to final marketing authorization. However, this remains a challenge because of the restricted availability and transferability of such data. Within this study, we set up a challenge to analyze the answers of two questions. First, from regulatory bodies' point of view, we bring the question of whether multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an adequate tool for further improvement of health technology assessment (HTA) of innovative medicines. Second, we ask if managed entry agreements (MEAs) pose solutions for facilitating the access to innovative medicines and further strengthening the evidence base concerning efficacy and effectiveness, as well as safety. Elaborating on such challenges brought us to conclude that increasing the attention to safety in MCDAs and MEAs will increase the trust of the authorities and improve the access for the manufacturers and the early availability of safe and effective medicines for the patients.

Alternative Approaches to Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Estimation Within Standard Cost-Effectiveness Models: Literature Review, Feasibility Assessment, and Impact Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has been long debated, but alternative estimation approaches have not been comprehensively evaluated. Our objective was to identify alternatives, characterize them by implementation feasibility, and evaluate the impact of implementing feasible options in cost-effectiveness models developed for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review combining keywords relating to QALYs, methodology alternatives, and cost-effectiveness in PubMed, EconLit, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Articles that discussed alternatives to the conventional QALY were included. Alternatives were characterized by type, data availability, calculation burden, and overall implementation feasibility. The subset of feasible alternatives, that is, sufficient data and methodology compatible with incorporation into common modeling approaches, were evaluated according to impact on incremental QALYs, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB), intervention rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB.

RESULTS

We identified 28 articles discussing 9 alternatives. Feasible alternatives were using patient preference (PP) data; equity weighting according to baseline utility, fair innings, or proportional QALY shortfall; and the equal value of life-years-gained approach. All alternatives affected the incremental QALY and iNMB outcomes, rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB. The PP alternative had the largest and most consistent impact. The PP impact on the proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB, was in the negative direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work is the first comprehensive evaluation of proposed alternatives to the conventional QALY. We found robust literature but few options that were feasible to be implemented in current healthcare decision-making processes.

Estimating Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD)

Objectives

At any point in time, a person’s lifetime health is the number of healthy life years they are expected to experience during their lifetime. In this article we propose an equity-relevant health metric, Health Adjusted Age at Death (HAAD), that facilitates comparison of lifetime health for individuals at the onset of different medical conditions, and allows for the assessment of which patient groups are worse off. A method for estimating HAAD is presented, and we use this method to rank four conditions in six countries according to several criteria of “worse off” as a proof of concept.

Methods

For individuals with specific conditions HAAD consists of two components: past health (before disease onset) and future expected health (after disease onset). Four conditions (acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), schizophrenia, and epilepsy) are analysed in six countries (Ethiopia, Haiti, China, Mexico, United States and Japan). Data from 2017 for all countries and for all diseases were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study database. In order to assess who are the worse off, we focus on four measures: the proportion of affected individuals who are expected to have HAAD<20 (T20), the 25^th and 75^th percentiles of HAAD for affected individuals (Q1 and Q3, respectively), and the average HAAD (aHAAD) across all affected individuals.

Results

Even in settings where aHAAD is similar for two conditions, other measures may vary. One example is AML (aHAAD = 59.3, T20 = 2.0%, Q3-Q1 = 14.8) and ALL (58.4, T20 = 4.6%, Q3-Q1 = 21.8) in the US. Many illnesses, such as epilepsy, are associated with more lifetime health in high-income settings (Q1 in Japan = 59.2) than in low-income settings (Q1 in Ethiopia = 26.3).

Conclusion

Using HAAD we may estimate the distribution of lifetime health of all individuals in a population, and this distribution can be incorporated as an equity consideration in setting priorities for health interventions.

[Equity in the health economic evaluation of public health: An overview]

AIM

Starting from the claim that public health interventions should aim to improve health equity, the article examines which methodological approaches of health economic evaluation exist to support the analysis of equity-related outcomes of different interventions.

METHOD

Critical review of the relevant literature.

RESULTS

Against the background of the normative foundations of health economic evaluation, three methodological approaches and three practical methods are presented that allow for considering health equity concerns in health economic evaluations. Implications of the different approaches and references to the German context are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The use of the instruments presented offers good potential to improve transparency with respect to distributive effects of different allocation decisions. This appears to be necessary in order to meet demands for health equity improving public health interventions - especially in the context of the German Prevention Act.

How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?

A deliberative citizens panel was held to obtain insight into criteria considered relevant for healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Our aim was to examine whether and how panel participation influenced participants' views on this topic. Participants (n = 24) deliberated on eight reimbursement cases in September and October, 2017. Using Q methodology, we identified three distinct viewpoints before (T₀) and after (T₁) panel participation. At T₀, viewpoint 1 emphasised that access to healthcare is a right and that prioritisation should be based solely on patients' needs. Viewpoint 2 acknowledged scarcity of resources and emphasised the importance of treatment-related health gains. Viewpoint 3 focused on helping those in need, favouring younger patients, patients with a family, and treating diseases that heavily burden the families of patients. At T₁, viewpoint 1 had become less opposed to prioritisation and more considerate of costs. Viewpoint 2 supported out-of-pocket payments more strongly. A new viewpoint 3 emerged that emphasised the importance of cost-effectiveness and that prioritisation should consider patient characteristics, such as their age. Participants' views partly remained stable, specifically regarding equal access and prioritisation based on need and health gains. Notable changes concerned increased support for prioritisation, consideration of costs, and cost-effectiveness. Further research into the effects of deliberative methods is required to better understand how they may contribute to the legitimacy of and public support for allocation decisions in healthcare.

Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare can be guided by both efficiency and equity principles. The latter principle is often explicated in terms of disease severity and, for example, defined as absolute or proportional shortfall. These severity operationalizations do not explicitly consider patients' age, even though age may be inextricably related to severity and an equity-relevant characteristic.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the relative strength of societal preferences for severity and age for informing allocation decisions in healthcare.

METHODS

We elicited preferences for severity and age in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (N = 1025) by applying choice tasks and person-trade-off tasks in a design in which severity levels and ages varied both separately and simultaneously between patient groups. We calculated person trade-off ratios and, in addition, applied ordinary least squares regression models to aid interpretation of the ratios when both severity and age varied.

RESULTS

Respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 2.46-3.50) to reimbursing treatment for relatively more severely ill and younger patients when preferences for both were elicited separately. When preferences were elicited simultaneously, respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 1.98 and 2.42) to reimbursing treatment for relatively younger patients, irrespective of patients' severity levels. Ratios varied depending on severity level and age and were generally higher when the difference in severity and age was larger between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that severity operationalizations and equity weights based on severity alone may not align with societal preferences. Adjusting decision-making frameworks to reflect age-related societal preferences should be considered.

A flexible formula for incorporating distributive concerns into cost-effectiveness analyses: Priority weights

Background

Cost effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are widely used to evaluate the opportunity cost of health care investments. However, few functions that take equity concerns into account are available for such CEA methods, and these concerns are therefore at risk of being disregarded. Among the functions that have been developed, most focus on the distribution of health gains, as opposed to the distribution of lifetime health. This is despite the fact that there are good reasons to give higher priority to individuals and groups with a low quality adjusted life expectancy from birth (QALE). Also, an even distribution of health gains may imply an uneven distribution of lifetime health.

Methods

We develop a systematic and explicit approach that allows for the inclusion of lifetime health concerns in CEAs, by creating a new priority weight function, PW = α+(t-γ)·C·e^-β·(t-γ), where t is the health measure. PW has several desirable properties. First, it is continuous and smooth, ensuring that people with similar health characteristics are treated alike. For example, those who achieve 50 QALE should be treated similarly to those who achieve 49.9 QALE. Second, it is flexible regarding shape and outcome measure (i.e., caters to other measures than QALE), so that a broad range of values may be modelled. Third, the coefficients have distinct roles. This allows for the easy manipulation of the PW’s shape. In order to demonstrate how PW may be applied, we use data from a previous study and estimated the coefficients of PW based on two approaches.

Conclusions

Equity concerns are important when conducting CEAs, which means that suitable PWs should be developed. We do not intend to determine which PW is the most appropriate, but to illustrate how a flexible general PW can be estimated based on empirical data.

Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective

BACKGROUND

In the context of priority setting, a differential cost-effectiveness threshold can be used to reflect a higher societal willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life-year gains in the worse off. However, uncertainty in the estimate of severity can lead to problems when evaluating the outcomes of cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVES

This study standardizes the assessment of severity, integrates its uncertainty with the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results and provides decision makers with a new estimate: the severity-adjusted probability of being cost effective.

METHODS

Severity is expressed in proportional and absolute shortfall and estimated using life tables and country-specific EQ-5D values. We use the three severity-based cost-effectiveness thresholds (€20.000, €50.000 and €80.000, per QALY) adopted in The Netherlands. We exemplify procedures of integrating uncertainty with a stylized example of a hypothetical oncology treatment.

RESULTS

Applying our methods, taking into account the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results and in the estimation of severity identifies the likelihood of an intervention being cost effective when there is uncertainty about the appropriate severity-based cost-effectiveness threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher willingness-to-pay thresholds for severe diseases are implemented in countries to reflect societal concerns for an equitable distribution of resources. However, the estimates of severity are uncertain, patient populations are heterogeneous, and this can be accounted for with the severity-adjusted probability of being cost effective proposed in this study. The application to the Netherlands suggests that not adopting the new method could result in incorrect decisions in the reimbursement of new health technologies.

The Corrective Approach: Policy Implications of Recent Developments in QALY Measurement Based on Prospect Theory

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Common health state valuation methodology, such as time tradeoff (TTO) and standard gamble (SG), is typically applied under several descriptively invalid assumptions, for example, related to linear quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or expected utility (EU) theory. Hence, the current use of results from health state valuation exercises may lead to biased QALY weights, which may in turn affect decisions based on economic evaluations using such weights. Methods have been proposed to correct responses for the biases associated with different health state valuation techniques. In this article we outline the relevance of prospect theory (PT), which has become the dominant descriptive alternative to EU, for health state valuations and economic evaluations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We provide an overview of work in this field, which aims to remove biases from QALY weights. We label this "the corrective approach." By quantifying PT parameters, such as loss aversion, probability weighting, and nonlinear utility, it may be possible to correct TTO and SG responses for biases in an attempt to produce more valid estimates of preferences for health states. Through straightforward examples, this article illustrates the effects of this corrective approach and discusses several unresolved issues that currently limit the relevance of corrected weights for policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Suggestions for research addressing these issues are provided. Nonetheless, if validly corrected health state valuations become available, we argue in favor of using these in economic evaluations.

An analysis of primary nurse consultation in the Community of Madrid

OBJECTIVE

to analyse the characteristics of primary care nurse consultation and to identify the factors associated with different types of activity.

METHOD

A cross-sectional multicentre observational study in 23 health centres (Community of Madrid), on 164 different nurses. The consultation was classified according to a consensus proposal in: "preventive activities" (PA), "self-care deficit" (SD), "coping and adaptation" (CA) and "diagnostic and therapeutic procedures" (DTP). Sociodemographic characteristics, health needs, and consultation characteristics were collected. A bivariate inferential analysis was made, and explanatory multivariate models were constructed.

RESULTS

Of the total consultations 63.6% (95% CI: 59.9-67.3%) were classified as DTP. The consultation was directly requested by the patient in 24.3% (95% CI: 21.0- 27.7%) of the cases. There were no differences in the type of consultations by gender (P=.858), or for immigrants (P=.428). Subjects from higher social classes more frequently attended PA consultations (P=.007). There were no other differences in accessibility. The DTP consultations related to previous hospitalizations (OR: 1.191, 95% CI: 1.088-1.304), or the previous use of services (nurse consultation OR: 1.002, 95% CI: 1.000-1.003, medical consultation OR: 1.003, 95% CI: 1.000-1.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The nurse consultation is mainly aimed at carrying out procedures and previously arranged consultation prevails over patient demanded consultation. No inequities in accessibility were detected, but the type of care for different social groups was not homogeneous.

Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?

It has been proposed that equity may be included in the economic evaluation of health services using the 'proportional shortfall' (PS)-the proportion of a person's QALY expectation that they would lose because of an illness. The present paper reports the results of a population survey designed to test whether PS helped to explain people's preferences for health services and whether it did this better than the absolute shortfall or the equity related variables that PS seeks to replace. Survey respondents were asked to allocate 100 votes between 13 scenarios and a standard scenario. Variation in the allocation of votes was explained by health gain and different combinations of the equity variables. Differences in votes for the comparisons were significantly related to differences in PS but the relationship was weaker than between votes and the age related variables. Cases were identified where PS suggested a priority ordering of services which was strongly rejected by respondents. It is concluded that the use of PS is unlikely to improve the alignment of priorities with public preferences.

Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting

INTRODUCTION

Policy makers increasingly need to prioritise between competing health technologies or patient populations. When aiming to align allocation decisions with societal preferences, knowledge and operationalisation of such preferences is indispensable. This study examines the distribution of three views on healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, labelled "Equal right to healthcare", "Limits to healthcare", and "Effective and efficient healthcare", and their relationship with preferences in willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises.

METHODS

A survey including four reimbursement scenarios was conducted in a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n = 261). Respondents were matched to one of the three views based on their agreement with 14 statements on principles for resource allocation. We tested for WTT differences between respondents with different views and applied logit regression models for examining the relationship between preferences and background characteristics, including views.

RESULTS

Nearly 65% of respondents held the view "Equal right to healthcare", followed by "Limits to healthcare" (22.5%), and "Effective and efficient healthcare" (7.1%). Most respondents (75.9%) expressed WTT in at least one scenario and preferred gains in quality of life over life expectancy, maximising gains over limiting inequality, treating children over elderly, and those with adversity over those with an unhealthy lifestyle. Various background characteristics, including the views, were associated with respondents' preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents held an egalitarian view on priority setting, yet the majority was willing to prioritise regardless of their view. Societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting are related. However, respondents' views influence preferences differently in different reimbursement scenarios. As societal views and preferences are heterogeneous and may conflict, aligning allocation decisions with societal preferences remains challenging and any decision may be expected to receive opposition from some group in society.

Against proportional shortfall as a priority-setting principle

As the demand for healthcare rises, so does the need for priority setting in healthcare. In this paper, I consider a prominent priority-setting principle: proportional shortfall. My purpose is to argue that proportional shortfall, as a principle, should not be adopted. My key criticism is that proportional shortfall fails to consider past health.Proportional shortfall is justified as it supposedly balances concern for prospective health while still accounting for lifetime health, even though past health is deemed irrelevant. Accounting for this lifetime perspective means that the principle may indirectly consider past health by accounting for how far an individual is from achieving a complete, healthy life. I argue that proportional shortfall does not account for this lifetime perspective as it fails to incorporate the fair innings argument as originally claimed, undermining its purported justification.I go on to demonstrate that the case for ignoring past health is weak, and argue that past health is at least sometimes relevant for priority-setting decisions. Specifically, when an individual's past health has a direct impact on current or future health, and when one individual has enjoyed significantly more healthy life years than another.Finally, I demonstrate that by ignoring past illnesses, even those entirely unrelated to their current illness, proportional shortfall can lead to instances of double jeopardy, a highly problematic implication. These arguments give us reason to reject proportional shortfall.

Beyond QALYs: Multi-criteria based estimation of maximum willingness to pay for health technologies

The QALY is a useful outcome measure in cost-effectiveness analysis. But in determining the overall value of and societal willingness to pay for health technologies, gains in quality of life and length of life are prima facie separate criteria that need not be put together in a single concept. A focus on costs per QALY can also be counterproductive. One reason is that the QALY does not capture well the value of interventions in patients with reduced potentials for health and thus different reference points. Another reason is a need to separate losses of length of life and losses of quality of life when it comes to judging the strength of moral claims on resources in patients of different ages. An alternative to the cost-per-QALY approach is outlined, consisting in the development of two bivariate value tables that may be used in combination to estimate maximum cost acceptance for given units of treatment-for instance a surgical procedure, or 1 year of medication-rather than for 'obtaining one QALY.' The approach is a follow-up of earlier work on 'cost value analysis.' It draws on work in the QALY field insofar as it uses health state values established in that field. But it does not use these values to weight life years and thus avoids devaluing gained life years in people with chronic illness or disability. Real tables of the kind proposed could be developed in deliberative processes among policy makers and serve as guidance for decision makers involved in health technology assessment and appraisal.

Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that concerns for the worse off need to be integrated with the concern for cost effectiveness in priority setting, and several countries are seeking to do so. In Norway, a comprehensive framework for priority setting was recently proposed to specify the worse off in terms of lifetime loss of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). However, few studies have shown how to calculate such health losses, how to integrate health loss into cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and how such integration impacts the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The aim of this study was to do so.

METHODS

The proposed framework was applied to data from 15 recent economic evaluations of drugs. Available data were used to calculate the lifetime health loss of the target groups, and the proposed marginal weighting function was employed to adjust standard ICERs according to the size of this loss. Standard and weighted ICERs were compared to a threshold of US$35,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Lifetime health loss can be calculated with the use of available data and integrated by a marginal weighting function with CEAs. Such integration affected standard ICERs to a varying degree and changed the number of interventions considered cost effective from three to eight.

CONCLUSION

Calculation of lifetime health loss and its integration with CEA is feasible and can influence the reimbursement and ranking of interventions. To facilitate regular integration, guidelines for economic evaluations could require (i) adjustment according to distributional concerns and (ii) that data on health loss are extracted directly from the models and reported. Generic databases on health loss could be developed alongside such efforts.

Income-based equity weights in healthcare planning and policy

Recent research indicates that there is a gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. This raises the question: should we on egalitarian grounds use income-based equity weights when we assess benefits of alternative benevolent interventions, so that health benefits to the poor count for more? This article provides three egalitarian arguments for using income-based equity weights under certain circumstances. If income inequality correlates with inequality in health, we have reason to use income-based equity weights on the ground that health inequality is bad. If income inequality correlates with inequality in opportunity for health, we have reason to use such weights on the ground that inequality in opportunity for health is bad. If income inequality correlates with inequality in well-being, income-based equity weights should be used to mitigate inequality in well-being. Three different ways in which to construe income-based equity weights are introduced and discussed. They can be based on relative income inequality, on income rankings and on capped absolute income. The article does not defend any of these types of weighting schemes, but argues that in order to settle which of these types of weighting scheme to choose, more empirical research is needed.

Equity in HTA: what doesn't get measured, gets marginalised

When making recommendations about the public funding of new health technologies, policy makers typically pay close attention to quantitative evidence about the comparative effectiveness, cost effectiveness and budget impact of those technologies – what we might call “efficiency” criteria. Less attention is paid, however, to quantitative evidence about who gains and who loses from these public expenditure decisions, and whether those who gain are better or worse off than the rest of the population in terms of their health – what we might call “equity” criteria. Two studies recently published in this journal by Shmueli and colleagues suggest that this efficiency-oriented imbalance in the use of quantitative evidence may have unfortunate consequences – as the old adage goes: “what gets measured, gets done”. The first study, by Shmueli, Golan, Paolucci and Mentzakis, found that health policy makers in Israel think equity considerations are just as important as efficiency considerations – at least when it comes to making hypothetical technology funding decisions in a survey. By contrast, the second study – by Shmueli alone – found that efficiency rules the roost when it comes to making real decisions about health technology funding in Israel. Both studies have limitations and potential biases, and more research is needed using qualitative methods and more nuanced survey designs to determine precisely which kinds of equity consideration decision makers think are most important and why these considerations do not appear to be given much weight in decision making. However, the basic overall finding from the two studies seems plausible and important. It suggests that health technology funding bodies need to pay closer attention to equity considerations, and to start making equity a quantitative endpoint of health technology assessment using the methods of equity-informative economic evaluation that are now available.

Treacle and Smallpox: Two Tests for Multicriteria Decision Analysis Models in Health Technology Assessment

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is rightly receiving increasing attention in health technology assessment. Nevertheless, a distinguishing feature of the health domain is that technologies must actually improve health, and good performance on other criteria cannot compensate for failure to do so. We argue for two reasonable tests for MCDA models: the treacle test (can a winning intervention be incompletely ineffective?) and the smallpox test (can a winning intervention be for a disease that no one suffers from?). We explore why models might fail such tests (as the models of some existing published studies would do) and offer some suggestions as to how practice should be improved.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health-the objective underpinning conventional CEA-and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and-crucially-who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.

Developing a Value Framework: The Need to Reflect the Opportunity Costs of Funding Decisions

A growing number of health care systems internationally use formal economic evaluation methods to support health care funding decisions. Recently, a range of organizations have been advocating forms of analysis that have been termed "value frameworks." There has also been a push for analytical methods to reflect a fuller range of benefits of interventions through multicriteria decision analysis. A key principle that is invariably neglected in current and proposed frameworks is the need to reflect evidence on the opportunity costs that health systems face when making funding decisions. The mechanisms by which opportunity costs are realized vary depending on the system's financial arrangements, but they always mean that a decision to fund a specific intervention for a particular patient group has the potential to impose costs on others in terms of forgone benefits. These opportunity costs are rarely explicitly reflected in analysis to support decisions, but recent developments to quantify benefits forgone make more appropriate analyses feasible. Opportunity costs also need to be reflected in decisions if a broader range of attributes of benefit is considered, and opportunity costs are a key consideration in determining the appropriate level of total expenditure in a system. The principles by which opportunity costs can be reflected in analysis are illustrated in this article by using the example of the proposed methods for value-based pricing in the United Kingdom.

Priority to End of Life Treatments? Views of the Public in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Recent debates in the Netherlands on health care priority setting have focused on the relative value of gains generated by life-extending medicines for people with a terminal illness, mostly new cancer drugs. These treatments are generally expensive, provide relatively small health gains, and therefore usually do not meet common cost per QALY thresholds. Nevertheless, these drugs may be provided under the assumption that there is public support for making a special case for treatments for people with a terminal illness. This study investigated the views of the public in the Netherlands on a range of equity and efficiency considerations relevant to priority setting and examines whether there is public support for making such a special case.

METHODS

Using Q methodology, three viewpoints on important principles for priority setting were identified. Data were collected through ranking exercises conducted by 46 members of the general public in the Netherlands, including 11 respondents with personal experience with cancer.

RESULTS

Viewpoint 1 emphasized that people have equal rights to healthcare and opposed priority setting on any ground. Viewpoint 2 emphasized that the care for terminal patients should at all times respect the patients' quality of life, which sometimes means refraining from invasive treatments. Viewpoint 3 had a strong focus on effective and efficient care and had no moral objection against priority setting under certain circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found little public support for the assumption that health gains in terminally ill patients are more valuable than those in other patients. This implies that the assumption that society is prepared to pay more for health gains in people who have only a short period of lifetime left does not correspond with societal preferences in the Netherlands.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs

Background

Limited resources and expanding expectations push all countries and types of health systems to adopt new approaches in priority setting and resources allocation. Despite best efforts, it is difficult to reconcile all competing interests, and trade-offs are inevitable. This is why multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has played a major role in recent uptake of value-based reimbursement. MCDA framework enables exploration of stakeholders’ preferences, as well as explicit organization of broad range of criteria on which real-world decisions are made. Assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs tend to be one of the most complicated health technology assessment (HTA) tasks. Access to market approved orphan therapies remains an issue. Early constructive dialog among rare disease stakeholders and elaboration of orphan drug-tailored decision support tools could set the scene for ongoing accumulation of evidence, as well as for proper reimbursement decision-making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to create an MCDA value measurement model to assess and appraise orphan drugs. This was achieved by exploring the preferences on decision criteria’s weights and performance scores through a stakeholder-representative survey and a focus group discussion that were both organized in Bulgaria.

Results/Conclusion

Decision criteria that describe the health technology’s characteristics were unanimously agreed as the most important group of reimbursement considerations. This outcome, combined with the high individual weight of disease severity and disease burden criteria, underlined some of the fundamental principles of health care – equity and fairness. Our study proved that strength of evidence may be a key criterion in orphan drug assessment and appraisal. Evidence is used not only to shape reimbursement decision-making but also to lend legitimacy to policies pursued. The need for real-world data on orphan drugs was largely stressed. Improved knowledge on MCDA feasibility and integration to HTA is of paramount importance, as progress in medicine and innovative health technologies should correspond to patient, health-care system, and societal values.

Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

In Australia, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) makes recommendations to the Minister for Health on which pharmaceuticals should be subsidised. Given the implications of PBAC recommendations for government finances and population health, PBAC is required to provide advice primarily on the basis of value for money. The aim of this article is twofold: to describe some major limitations of the current PBAC decision-making process in relation to its implicit aim of maximising value for money; and to suggest what might be done toward overcoming these limitations. This should also offer lessons for the many decision-making bodies around the world that are similar to PBAC. The current PBAC decision-making process is limited in two important respects. First, it features the use of an implicit incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold that may not reflect the opportunity cost of funding a new technology, with unknown and possibly negative consequences for population health. Second, the process does not feature a means of systematically assessing how a technology may be of greater or lesser value in light of factors that are not captured by standard measures of cost effectiveness, but which are nonetheless important, particularly to the Australian community. Overcoming these limitations would mean that PBAC could be more confident of maximising value for money when making funding decisions.

A Systematic Review of the Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: Real-World Impact on Survival, Quality of Life and Costs

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the overall burden of pancreatic cancer in Europe, with a focus on survival time in a real-world setting, and the overall healthy life lost to the disease.

METHODS

Real-world data were retrieved from peer-reviewed, observational studies identified by an electronic search. We performed two de novo analyses: a proportional shortfall analysis to quantify the proportion of healthy life lost to pancreatic cancer and an estimation of the aggregate life-years lost annually in Europe.

RESULTS

Ninety-one studies were included. The median, age-standardised incidence of pancreatic cancer per 100,000 was 7.6 in men and 4.9 in women. Overall median survival from diagnosis was 4.6 months; median survival was 2.8-5.7 months in patients with metastatic disease. The proportional shortfall analysis showed that pancreatic cancer results in a 98 % loss of healthy life, with a life expectancy at diagnosis of 4.6 months compared to 15.1 years for an age-matched healthy population. Annually, 610,000-915,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are lost to pancreatic cancer in Europe. Patients had significantly lower scores on validated health-related quality of life instruments versus population norms.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review real-world overall survival and patient outcomes of pancreatic cancer patients in Europe outside the context of clinical trials. Our findings confirm the poor prognosis and short survival reported by national studies. Pancreatic cancer is a substantial burden in Europe, with nearly a million aggregate life-years lost annually and almost complete loss of healthy life in affected individuals.

Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Including societal preferences in allocation decisions is an important challenge for the health care sector. Here, we present results of a phased discrete choice experiment investigating the impact of various attributes on respondents' preferences for distribution of health and health care. In addition to the renowned equity principles severity of illness (operationalized as initial health) and fair innings (operationalized as age), some characteristics of beneficiaries (culpability and having dependents) and the disease (rarity) were included in the choice experiment. We used a nested logit model to analyse the data. We found that all selected attributes significantly influenced respondents' choices. The phased inclusion showed that additional attributes affected respondents' preferences for previously-included attributes and reduced unobserved variance. Although not all these attributes may be considered relevant for decision making from a normative perspective, including them in choice experiments contributes to our understanding of societal preferences for each single attribute.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Evidence to Inform Decisions as to which Health Services to Provide

Abstract-This article focuses on three challenges concerning the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform decision making regarding which services a third-party payer will fund. First, how is the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold or threshold range to be determined or, indeed, should there be a single threshold or multiple thresholds? Second, how can the valuation of health benefits be refined to better capture the value of treatments to patients and to the economy as a whole? Third, how is the tension between cost-effectiveness and the affordability and sustainability of health services to be managed?It concludes that whatever other factors are considered in addition to cost-effectiveness, and whether the decision-making process is more or less deliberative, cost-effectiveness thresholds are important. Though there is a range of sources for identifying appropriate thresholds, using the opportunity cost in terms of the health benefits from displaced activities will minimize the problem of cost-effective interventions not being affordable and will facilitate the efficient use of scarce resources. Finally, although experience using weighted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is currently very limited, it is likely to be an important area in the future.

A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair

Health systems worldwide struggle to meet increasing demands for health care, and Norway is no exception. This paper discusses the new, comprehensive framework for priority setting recently laid out by the third Norwegian Committee on Priority Setting in the Health Sector. The framework posits that priority setting should pursue the goal of "the greatest number of healthy life years for all, fairly distributed" and centres on three criteria: 1) The health-benefit criterion: The priority of an intervention increases with the expected health benefit (and other relevant welfare benefits) from the intervention; 2) The resource criterion: The priority of an intervention increases, the less resources it requires; and 3) The health-loss criterion: The priority of an intervention increases with the expected lifetime health loss of the beneficiary in the absence of such an intervention. Cost-effectiveness plays a central role in this framework, but only alongside the health-loss criterion which incorporates a special concern for the worse off and promotes fairness. In line with this, cost-effectiveness thresholds are differentiated according to health loss. Concrete implementation tools and open processes with user participation complement the three criteria. Informed by the proposal, the Ministry of Health and Care Services is preparing a report to the Parliament, with the aim of reaching political consensus on a new priority-setting framework for Norway.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life

OBJECTIVES

. Recent proposals for value-based assessment, made by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, recommended that burden of illness (BOI) should replace end of life (EOL) as a factor for consideration when deciding on new health technologies. This article reports on a study eliciting societal preferences for 1) BOI from a medical condition, defined as quality-adjusted life year (QALY) loss due to premature mortality and prospective morbidity, and 2) EOL, defined as expected life expectancy of less than 2 years and expected life expectancy gain from new treatment of 3 months or more.

METHODS

. A discrete choice experiment survey was conducted with an online UK general population sample. Respondents chose whether they thought the health service should treat patient group A or B: life expectancy and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) with current treatment or life expectancy and HRQOL gains from new treatment, respectively. These attributes were used to derive BOI, QALY gain, and EOL. The respondents' choices were analyzed using conditional logistic regression with a range of specifications examined, including BOI or EOL, QALY gain and QALY gain squared, and robustness. QALY weights were estimated.

RESULTS

. The sample of 3669 respondents was representative of the UK population for age and sex. QALY gain had a positive and significant coefficient across all models. QALY gain squared term was negative and significant across all models, indicating a diminishing marginal social value from QALY gains. When included, the BOI coefficient was generally small, positive, and significant, but this was not consistent across the different life expectancy variants. EOL was always positive and significant.

CONCLUSIONS

. The social value of a QALY gain is not equal between recipients but depends on whether they are end of life, and it may depend on the prospective burden of illness.

Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

To judge whether an intervention offers value for money, the incremental costs per gained quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) need to be compared with some relevant threshold, which ideally reflects the monetary value of health gains. Literature suggests that this value may depend on the equity context in which health gains are produced, but the value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations has remained largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the social marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for QALY gains in different equity subgroups, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Both severity of illness (operationalized as proportional shortfall) and fair innings (operationalized as age) were considered as grounds for differentiating the value of health gains.

METHODS

We obtained a sample of 1205 respondents, representative of the adult population of the Netherlands. The data was analysed using panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) and latent class models.

RESULTS

The panel MMNL models showed counterintuitive results, with more severe health states reducing the probability of receiving treatment. The latent class models revealed distinct preference patterns in the data. MWTP per QALY was sensitive to severity of disease among a substantial proportion of the public, but not to the age of care recipients.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the importance of accounting for preference heterogeneity among the public on value-laden issues such as prioritizing health care, both in research and decision making. This study emphasises the need to further explore the monetary value of a QALY in relation to equity considerations.