How important is severity for the evaluation of health services: new evidence using the relative social willingness to pay instrument

"It's hard to say anything definitive about what severity really is": lay conceptualisations of severity in a healthcare context

BACKGROUND

Demand for healthcare outweighs available resources, making priority setting a critical issue. 'Severity' is a priority-setting criterion in many healthcare systems, including in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. However, there is a lack of consensus on what severity means in a healthcare context, both in the academic literature and in policy. Further, while public preference elicitation studies demonstrate support for severity as a relevant concern in priority setting, there is a paucity of research on what severity is taken to mean for the public. The purpose of this study is to explore how severity is conceptualised by members of the general public.

METHODS

Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from February to July 2021 with members of the Norwegian adult public (n = 59). These were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis, incorporating inductive and deductive elements.

RESULTS

Through the analysis we arrived at three interrelated main themes. Severity as subjective experience included perceptions of severity as inherently subjective and personal. Emphasis was on the individual's unique insight into their illness, and there was a concern that the assessment of severity should be fair for the individual. The second theme, Severity as objective fact, included perceptions of severity as something determined by objective criteria, so that a severe condition is equally severe for any person. Here, there was a concern for determining severity fairly within and across patient groups. The third theme, Severity as situation dependent, included perceptions of severity centered on second-order effects of illness. These included effects on the individual, such as their ability to work and enjoy their hobbies, effects on those surrounding the patient, such as next of kin, and effects at a societal level, such as production loss. We also identified a concern for determining severity fairly at a societal level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that severity is a polyvalent notion with different meanings attached to it. There seems to be a dissonance between lay conceptualisations of severity and policy operationalisations of the term, which may lead to miscommunications between members of the public and policymakers.

Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies

INTRODUCTION

We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits).

RESULTS

We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.

Considering Severity in Health Technology Assessment: Can We Do Better?

There is strong evidence that individuals and the public assign relatively greater value to health gains from relatively more severe health states. This preference is increasingly reflected in health technology assessment, with some consideration of severity incorporated by health technology assessment bodies in, among others, The Netherlands, England and Wales, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. If a societal "severity premium" is to be considered fairly and consistently, we argue that a more explicit and quantitative approach is needed. We highlight drawbacks of categorical approaches, especially discontinuities between severity categories that arguably violate concepts of vertical equity, and argue that a more continuous approach to understanding severity is needed. We also note challenges to more explicit approaches, including implications of a lower threshold for less severe conditions and the relative complexity of calculating a continuous severity adjustment.

Evaluating Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay [DCE-WTP] analysis, and Relative Social Willingness to Pay [RS-WTP] analysis in a Health Technology Assessment of a treatment for an ultra-rare childhood disease [CLN2]

BACKGROUND

: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ("social") perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified.

RESULTS

DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques illustrated substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

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.

The treatment decision under uncertainty: The effects of health, wealth and the probability of death

Medical treatment reduces diagnostic risk, increases therapeutic risk and lowers the probability of death. This paper analyzes the effects of initial health, wealth and the probability of death on the propensity to treat under diagnostic and therapeutic risk. It shows that treatment propensity increases with the probability of death, but can decrease with the severity of illness. The effect of wealth depends on the cross-derivative of the utility function with respect to health and wealth. These results have implications for treatment decisions at the end of life.

Overestimation of health urgency as a cause for emergency services inappropriate use: Insights from an exploratory economics experiment in Portugal

Increasing visits to emergency departments add strain to public healthcare systems. The misperception of symptoms' severity can partly explain inappropriate use of hospitals' emergency departments by non-urgent patients. This paper focuses on the misperception of symptoms' severity as a cause for the inappropriate use of emergency departments. It explores the role that informing potential patients of the correct severity level can play in correcting this inefficiency. We implement in an incentivised manner an exploratory economic experiment to elicit the degree of severity of five sets of symptoms, corresponding to frequent causes of emergency department visits. The study was setup in Braga, Northern Portugal, recruiting voluntary participants through civic local organisations. We ask participants to indicate the more suitable health service, before and after revealing the true degree of severity. Results show that there is an overestimation of the degree of severity of some clinical profiles, and when confronted with the real severity, in only half of the cases are choices changed to other health services. Although exploratory, this study provides insights into the potential role of health education policies concerning symptoms' severity but it also highlights the limits of such policies. Furthermore, the use of economic experiments can provide meaningful insights for the design of policies addressing demand-side healthcare inefficiencies.

Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?

The economic evaluation of new health technologies to assess whether the value of the expected health benefits warrants the proposed additional costs has become an essential step in making novel interventions available to patients. This assessment of value is problematic because there exists no natural means to measure it. One approach is to assume that society wishes to maximize aggregate health, measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Commonly, a single 'cost-effectiveness' threshold is used to gauge whether the intervention is sufficiently efficient in doing so. This approach has come under fire for failing to account for societal values that favor treating more severe illness and ensuring equal access to resources, regardless of pre-existing conditions or capacity to benefit. Alternatives involving expansion of the measure of benefit or adjusting the threshold have been proposed and some have advocated tacking away from the cost per QALY entirely to implement therapeutic area-specific efficiency frontiers, multicriteria decision analysis or other approaches that keep the dimensions of benefit distinct and value them separately. In this paper, each of these alternative courses is considered, based on the experiences of the authors, with a view to clarifying their implications.

Uncertainty and the Undervaluation of Services for Severe Health States in Cost-Utility Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that the "severity effect"-the preference for more than utility-maximizing expenditure on severe health states-may be the result of, or exacerbated by, the uncertainty associated with the chance of contracting the illness that causes the severe health state.

METHODS

Survey respondents were asked to imagine that they will contract one of two illnesses and asked to allocate a budget between two insurance policies, each of which provides services for the treatment of one of the illnesses. A person's final health state varied with the amount of insurance purchased for the illness that occurred and therefore with the level of treatment. The relative cost of the two policies was altered and the selected levels of insurance compared with the levels that would be provided by a health authority that sought to maximize total utility or quality-adjusted life-years from its own budget.

RESULTS

Respondents selected more than utility-maximizing insurance for protection against severe health states. A number of psychological factors that affect measurement under uncertainty do not affect utility as currently measured. This difference may explain the present results and also explain the "severity paradox" that personal preferences as presently measured imply less expenditure on severe health states than do "social preferences" for the treatment of strangers.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty alters preferences. Incorporating these preferences in decision making would result in greater spending on severe health states.

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Policies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included.

RESULTS

We identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK-one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed.

CONCLUSION

We did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.