Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Defining disease severity in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis for the application to biomarker research: an interdisciplinary perspective

More severe atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are associated with a higher cumulative impact on quality of life, multimorbidity and healthcare costs. Proactive, early intervention in those most at risk of severe disease may reduce this cumulative burden and modify the disease trajectory to limit progression. The lack of reliable biomarkers for this at-risk group represents a barrier to such a paradigm shift in practice. To expedite discovery and validation, the BIOMarkers in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis (BIOMAP) consortium (a large-scale European, interdisciplinary research initiative) has curated clinical and molecular data across diverse study designs and sources including cross-sectional and cohort studies (small-scale studies through to large multicentre registries), clinical trials, electronic health records and large-scale population-based biobanks. We map all dataset disease severity instruments and measures to three key domains (symptoms, inflammatory activity and disease course), and describe important codependencies and relationships across variables and domains. We prioritize definitions for more severe disease with reference to international consensus, reference standards and/or expert opinion. Key factors to consider when analysing datasets across these diverse study types include explicit early consideration of biomarker purpose and clinical context, candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity at a particular point in time and over time and how they are related, taking the stage of biomarker development into account when selecting disease severity measures for analyses, and validating biomarker associations with disease severity outcomes using both physician- and patient-reported measures and across domains. The outputs from this exercise will ensure coherence and focus across the BIOMAP consortium so that mechanistic insights and biomarkers are clinically relevant, patient-centric and more generalizable to current and future research efforts.

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.

Problems with NICE's severity weights

This essay examines the implications, plausibility, and justification of the severity weighting that NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) has endorsed for technology assessments in the U.K. It argues that the assignment by NICE of additional weights to health conditions which involve a large absolute or proportional shortfall of future expected QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) as compared to those who do not have these health conditions is not well supported and has troubling implications. The literature concerned with attitudes toward prioritizing severity has found a variety of notions of severity, and it is questionable to what extent those studies bear on whether to assign greater weights to health states involving large absolute or proportional shortfalls. In addition, the severity weighting is not well supported by either egalitarian or prioritarian political philosophy, because it is concerned only with the future and focuses only on health rather than well-being in general.

The Estimated Cost-Effectiveness of Physician-Staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services Compared to Ground-Based Emergency Medical Services in Finland

OBJECTIVE

Because the unit cost of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) is higher than traditional ground-based emergency medical services (EMS), it is important to further investigate the impact of HEMS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-staffed HEMS compared with ground-based EMS in Finland under current practices.

METHODS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was evaluated using the differences in outcomes and costs between HEMS and ground-based EMS. The estimated mortality within 30 days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to measure health benefits. Quality of life was estimated according to the EuroQoL scale, and a 1-way sensitivity analysis was conducted on the QALY indexes ranging from 0.6 to 0.8. Survival rates were calculated according to the national HEMS database, and the cost structure was estimated at 48 million euros based on financial statements.

RESULTS

HEMS prevented the 30-day mortality of 68.1 patients annually, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €43,688 to €56,918/QALY. Fixed costs accounted for 93% of HEMS expenses because of 24/7 operations, making the capacity utilization rate a major determinant of total costs.

CONCLUSION

HEMS intervention is cost-effective compared with ground-based EMS and is acceptable from a societal willingness-to-pay perspective. These findings contribute valuable insights for health care management decision making and highlight the need for future research for service optimization.

Preparing popular views for inclusion in a reflective equilibrium: A case study on illness severity

Principles for priority setting in health care are typically forged by experts influenced by the normative literature on priority setting. Meanwhile, their implementation is subject to democratic deliberation, political pressures, and administrative bureaucracy. Sometimes expert proposals are democratically rejected. This points towards a problem: on the one hand, the fact that a majority shares a moral belief does not inherently validate this belief. On the other hand, when justifying a position to others, we cannot expect much success without engaging with their moral judgments. In this work we examine the possibility of including so-called popular views in a reflective equilibrium process. In reflective equilibrium processes, we are usually interested in considered judgments rather than mere intuitions. Popular views, arguably, often do not meet this standard. To mitigate this, we propose to bolster popular views by linking them with theoretical frameworks echoing similar moral perspectives. We use illness severity as a case study and show that a set of popular accounts can provide considered judgments that merit inclusion in a publicly informed reflective equilibrium process. This is plausibly a way forward in the search for priority setting principles that are both normatively sound and acceptable to the public. Our method provides a general framework for refining available data on popular views on moral questions, including when we cannot assess the consideredness of such views.

Needs assessment in long-term care: expression of national principles for priority setting in service allocation

BACKGROUND

Long-term care services for older adults are characterised by increasing needs and scarce resources. Political strategies have led to the reorganisation of long-term care services, with an increased focus on "ageing in place" and efficient use of resources. There is currently limited research on the processes by which resource allocation decisions are made by service allocators of long-term care services for older adults. The aim of this study is to explore how three political principles for priority setting in long-term care, resource, severity and benefit, are expressed in service allocation to older adults.

METHODS

This qualitative study uses data from semi-structured individual interviews, focus groups and observations of service allocators who assess needs and assign long-term care services to older adults in Norway. The data were supplemented with individual decision letters from the allocation office, granting or denying long-term care services. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The allocators drew on all three principles for priority setting when assessing older adults' long-term care needs and allocating services. We found that the three principles pushed in different directions in the allocation process. We identified six themes related to service allocators' expression of the principles: (1) lowest effective level of care as a criterion for service allocation (resource), (2) blanket allocation of low-cost care services (resource), (3) severity of medical and rehabilitation needs (severity), (4) severity of care needs (severity), (5) benefit of generous service allocation (benefit) and (6) benefit of avoiding services (benefit).

CONCLUSIONS

The expressions of the three political principles for priority setting in long-term care allocation are in accordance with broader political trends and discourses regarding "ageing in place", active ageing, an investment ideology, and prioritising those who are "worse off". Increasing attention to the rehabilitation potential of older adults and expectations that they will take care of themselves increase the risk of not meeting frail older adults' care needs. Additionally, difficulties in defining the severity of older adults' complex needs lead to debates regarding "worse off" versus potentiality in future long-term care services allocation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

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.

A global comparative analysis of the criteria and equity considerations included in eighty-six national COVID-19 plans

Systematic priority setting (PS), based on explicit criteria, is thought to improve the quality and consistency of the PS decisions. Among the PS criteria, there is increased focus on the importance of equity considerations and vulnerable populations. This paper discusses the PS criteria that were included in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans, with specific focus on equity and on the vulnerable populations considered. Secondary synthesis of data, from a global comparative study that examined the degree to which the COVID-19 plans included PS, was conducted. Only 32 % of the plans identified explicit criteria. Severity of the disease and/or disease burden were the commonly mentioned criteria. With regards to equity considerations and prioritizing vulnerable populations, 22 countries identified people with co-morbidities others mentioned children, women etc. Low social-economic status and internally displaced population were not identified in any of the reviewed national plans. The limited inclusion of explicit criteria and equity considerations highlight a need for policy makers, in all contexts, to consider instituting and equipping PS institutions who can engage diverse stakeholders in identifying the relevant PS criteria during the post pandemic period. While vulnerability will vary with the type of health emergency- awareness of this and having mechanisms for identifying and prioritizing the most vulnerable will support equitable pandemic responses.

Should Severity Assessments in Healthcare Priority Setting be Risk- and Time-Sensitive?

BACKGROUND

Severity plays an essential role in healthcare priority setting. Still, severity is an under-theorised concept. One controversy concerns whether severity should be risk- and/or time-sensitive. The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of this question.

METHODS

A reflective equilibrium approach is used, where judgements and arguments concerning severity in preventive situations are related to overall normative judgements and background theories in priority-setting, aiming for consistency. Analysis, discussion, and conclusions: There is an argument for taking the risk of developing a condition into account, and we do this when we consider the risk of dying in the severity assessment. If severity is discounted according to risk, this will 'dilute' severity, depending on how well we are able to delineate the population, which is dependent on the current level of knowledge. This will potentially have a more far-reaching effect when considering primary prevention, potentially the de-prioritisation of effective preventive treatments in relation to acute, less-effective treatments. The risk arguments are dependent on which population is being assessed. If we focus on the whole population at risk, with T0 as the relevant population, this supports the risk argument. If we instead focus on the population of as-yet (at T0) unidentified individuals who will develop the condition at T1, risk will become irrelevant, and severity will not be risk sensitive. The strongest argument for time-sensitive severity (or for discounting future severity) is the future development of technology. On a short timescale, this will differ between different diagnoses, supporting individualised discounting. On a large timescale, a more general discounting might be acceptable. However, we need to also consider the systemic effects of allowing severity to be risk- and time-sensitive.

Adaptation and illness severity: the significance of suffering

Adaptation to illness, and its relevance for distribution in health care, has been the subject of vigorous debate. In this paper I examine an aspect of this discussion that seems so far to have been overlooked: that some illnesses are difficult, or even impossible, to adapt to. This matters because adaptation reduces suffering. Illness severity is a priority setting criterion in several countries. When considering severity, we are interested in the extent to which an illness makes a person worse-off. I argue that no plausible theory of well-being can disregard suffering when determining to what extent someone is worse-off in terms of health. We should accept, all else equal, that adapting to an illness makes the illness less severe by reducing suffering. Accepting a pluralist theory of well-being allows us to accept my argument, while still making room for the possibility that adaptation is sometimes, all things considered, bad. Finally, I argue that we should conceptualize adaptability as a feature of illness, and thereby account for adaptation on a group level for the purposes of priority setting.

Do national health priorities align with Global Burden of Disease estimates on disease burden? An analysis of national health plans and official governmental websites

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the alignment of national health priorities with a country's burden of disease as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

METHODS

We identified priorities in national health plans and the 20 most burdensome conditions measured by DALYs from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study. We computed point-biserial correlations (rpb) between DALYs and being nominated as a health priority and the pooled proportion (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as a priority across countries.

RESULTS

We identified national health plans and official governmental websites in 145 countries. There was little to no correlation (rpb = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.09) between national DALY data and whether a condition was nominated as a health priority. The pooled proportion of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as priorities across countries was 46%. HIV/AIDS had the greatest number of nominations as a national health priority (62 countries) as well as the greatest match with the burden of disease (among the top 20 most burdensome conditions in 51 [82%] countries). Low back pain, headache disorders and congenital birth defects had the lowest proportion of nominations as health priorities in countries where they were in the top 20 most burdensome conditions (6%, 6% and 11%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Globally, there were low correlations between national health priorities and GBD estimates on disease burden. Failing to prioritise health priorities according to burden may mean that insufficient resources have been directed to improve health outcomes for people with those health conditions.

Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects.

METHOD

A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach-frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness -participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering-data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities-methods to finalise priorities.

RESULTS

In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research.

CONCLUSION

Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

Severity as a moral qualifier of malady

The overarching aim of this article is to scrutinize how severity can work as a qualifier for the moral impetus of malady. While there is agreement that malady is of negative value, there is disagreement about precisely how this is so. Nevertheless, alleviating disease, injury, and associated suffering is almost universally considered good. Furthermore, the strength of a diseased person's moral claims for our attention and efforts will inevitably vary. This article starts by reflecting on what kind of moral impetus malady incites. We then analyze how severity may qualify this impetus. We do so by discussing the relationship between severity and need, well-being and disvalue, death, urgency, rule of rescue, and distributive justice. We then summarize our thoughts about severity as a moral qualifier. We conclude that severity is, and should continue to be seen, as a morally significant concept that deserves continued attention in the future.

The Value of New: Consideration of Product Novelty in Health Technology Assessments of Pharmaceuticals

BACKGROUND

Efforts to understand how treatments affect patients and society have broadened the criteria that health technology assessment (HTA) organizations apply to value assessments. We examined whether HTA agencies in eight countries consider treatment novelty in methods and deliberations.

METHODS

We defined a novel pharmaceutical product to be one that offers a new approach to treatment (e.g., new mechanism of action), addresses an unmet need (e.g., targets a rare condition without effective treatments), or has a broader impact beyond what is typically measured in an HTA. We reviewed peer-reviewed publications and technical guidance materials from HTA organizations in Australia, Canada, England, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (US). In addition, we explored how HTA organizations integrated novelty considerations into deliberations and recommendations related to two newer therapies-voretigene neparvovec for an inherited retinal disorder and ocrelizumab for multiple sclerosis.

RESULTS

None of the HTA organizations acknowledge treatment novelty as an explicit value criterion in their assessments of pharmaceutical products. However, drugs that have novel characteristics are given special consideration, particularly when they address an unmet need. Several organizations document a willingness to expend more resources and accept greater evidence uncertainty for such treatments. Qualitative deliberations about the additional unquantified potential benefits of treatment may also influence HTA recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Major HTA organizations do not recognize novelty as an explicit value criterion, although drugs with novel characteristics may receive special consideration. There is an opportunity for organizations to codify their approach to evaluating novelty in value assessment.

The Ethical Relevance of "Alternatives" in Health Care Priority Setting - The Case of Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) of HIV

Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV is a drug that reduces the risk for an HIV-negative person to acquire HIV if taken prior to sex. It has been suggested that it is important for resource allocation decisions that there are alternatives (such as abstinence, masturbation, etc.) for individuals potentially benefitted by this prophylaxis. In this paper we explore this idea from an ethical perspective in relation to three notions often discussed in priority setting ethics, namely responsibility, outcomes, and severity of disease. While the relevance of alternatives may be explained in terms by responsibility-sensitive priority setting, such a view comes with several challenges. We then discuss two other ways in which this intuition could be better explained: (a) in terms of total outcome of health, and (b) in terms of severity of the condition.

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.

Appraising Drugs Based on Cost-effectiveness and Severity of Disease in Norwegian Drug Coverage Decisions

IMPORTANCE

Rising health care costs are a major health policy challenge globally. Norway has implemented a priority-setting system intended to balance cost-effectiveness and concerns for fair distribution, but little is known about this strategy and whether it works in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To present and evaluate a systematic drug appraisal method that uses the severity of disease to account for a fair distribution of health in cost-effectiveness analysis, forming the basis for price negotiations and coverage decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study uses confidential drug price information and publicly available data from health technology assessments and logistic and linear regression analyses to evaluate drug coverage decisions for the Norwegian specialized health care sector from 2014 to 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Drug coverage decisions by Norwegian authorities and incremental cost-effectiveness and severity of disease measured as absolute shortfall of quality adjusted life years.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 188 drugs were appraised, of which 113 were cancer drugs. The overall coverage rate was 73% (138 of 188). The number of annual appraisals increased during the observation period. Based on 83 chosen decisions, regression analysis showed that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) based on negotiated drug prices, adjusted for severity-differentiated cost-effectiveness thresholds, was the variable that best projected drug approvals (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.86). An increase in the ICER by $10 000 was associated with a reduction in the odds for approval of 40% for drugs assessed from 2018 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study demonstrated how concerns for efficiency and fair distribution of health can be implemented systematically into drug appraisals and reimbursement decisions. New, expensive drugs are expected to escalate health care costs in the years to come, and it may be feasible to control costs by negotiating the prices of new drugs while appraising both their cost-effectiveness and how their health benefits are distributed.

Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey

Background

In an ideal world, everyone would receive medical resources in accordance with their needs. In reality, resources are often scarce and have an alternative use. Thus, we are forced to prioritize. Although Norway is one of the leading countries in normative priority setting work, few descriptive studies have been conducted in the country. To increase legitimacy in priority setting, knowledge about laypeople’s attitudes is central. The aim of the study is therefore to assess the general population’s attitudes towards a broad spectrum of issues pertinent to priority setting in the Norwegian publicly financed health care system.

Methods

We developed an electronic questionnaire that was distributed to a representative sample of 2 540 Norwegians regarding their attitudes towards priority setting in Norway. A total of 1 035 responded (response rate 40.7%). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression.

Results

A majority (73.0%) of respondents preferred increased funding of publicly financed health services at the expense of other sectors in society. Moreover, a larger share of the respondents suggested either increased taxes (37.0%) or drawing from the Government Pension Fund Global (31.0%) as sources of funding. However, the respondents were divided on whether it was acceptable to say “no” to new cancer drugs when the effect is low and the price is high: 38.6% somewhat or fully disagreed that this was acceptable, while 46.5% somewhat or fully agreed. Lastly, 84.0% of the respondents did not find it acceptable that the Norwegian municipalities have different standards for providing care services.

Conclusion

Although the survey suggests support for priority setting among Norwegian laypeople, it has also revealed that a significant minority are reluctant to accept it.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07806-9.

Equity, justice, and social values in priority setting: a qualitative study of resource allocation criteria for global donor organizations working in low-income countries

Background

There is increasing acceptance of the importance of social values such as equity and fairness in health care priority setting (PS). However, equity is difficult to define: the term means different things to different people, and the ways it is understood in theory often may not align with how it is operationalized. There is limited literature on how development assistance partner organizations (DAP) conceptualize and operationalize equity in their health care prioritization decisions that affect low-income countries (LIC). This paper explores whether and how equity is a consideration in DAP priority setting processes.

Methods

This was a qualitative study involving 38 in-depth interviews with DAPs involved in health-system PS for LICs and a review of their respective webpages.

Results

While several PS criteria were identified, direct articulation of equity as an explicit criterion was lacking. However, the criterion was implied in some of the responses in terms of prioritizing vulnerable populations. Where mentioned, respondents discussed the difficulties of operationalizing equity as a PS criterion since vulnerability is associated with several varying and competing factors including gender, age, geography, and income. Some respondents also suggested that equity could be operationalized in terms of an organization not supporting the pre-existing inequities.

Although several organizations’ webpages identify addressing inequities as a guiding principle, there were variations in how they spoke about its operationalization. While intersectionalities in vulnerabilities complicate its operationalization, if organizations explicitly articulate their equity focus the other organizations who also have equity as a guiding principle may, instead of focusing on the same aspect, concentrate on other dimensions of vulnerability. That way, all organizations will contribute to achieving equity in all the relevant dimensions.

Conclusions

Since most development organizations support some form of equity, this paper highlights a need for an internationally recognized framework that recognizes the intersectionalities of vulnerability, for mainstreaming and operationalizing equity in DAP priority setting and resource allocation. Such a framework will support consistency in the conceptualization of and operationalization of equity in global health programs. There is a need for studies which to assess the degree to which equity is actually integrated in these programs.

Equity has become an increasingly important focus in the health and social science literature, however, equity is a contested concept.

While development assistance partners supporting health development subscribe to equity as a guiding principle, they struggle with its operationalization.

There is need for a general framework that explicitly conceptualizes the operationalization of equity in health development.

Should rare diseases get special treatment?

Orphan drug policy often gives 'special treatment' to rare diseases, by giving additional priority or making exceptions to specific drugs, based on the rarity of the conditions they aim to treat. This essay argues that the goal of orphan drug policy should be to make prevalence irrelevant to funding decisions. It aims to demonstrate that it is severity, not prevalence, which drives our judgments that important claims are being overlooked when treatments for severe rare diseases are not funded. It shows that prioritising severity avoids problems caused by prioritising rarity, and that it is compatible with a range of normative frameworks. The implications of a severity-based view for drug development are then derived. The severity-based view also accounts for what is wrong with how the current system of drug development unfairly neglects common diseases that burden the developing world. Lastly, the implications of a severity-based view for current orphan drug policies are discussed.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

The politicians' perspectives on participation in mammographic screening: an interview-based study from a region in Sweden

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer type among women globally. To facilitate early detection, all 40–74-year-old female residents of Sweden are invited to participate in a population-based mammographic screening programme. Approximately 20% of all invited women decline the offer, and if this is due to systematic differences that can be adjusted, it can indicate inequity in healthcare. Assessment of and being updated about the health and healthcare of the residents are largely the responsibilities of the self-governed regions in Sweden. The understanding of the residents’ health serves as a basis for decision making and priority setting. This study aims to describe how politicians representing a region in Sweden perceive women’s participation in mammographic screening and the politicians’ own possibility to promote such participation.

Methods

Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on the data obtained from individual semi-structured interviews held in 2019. The interviewees comprised ten politicians (six women and four men, 38–71 years old) representing a sub-committee focusing on public health and healthcare issues.

Results

Two main themes have been identified: 1) expected actions and 2) expected conditions for acting, including a total of four sub-themes. According to the politicians, the expected actions, such as obtaining information and being updated about matters regarding mammographic screening, concern both the women invited to the screening and the politicians themselves. Additionally, for both the individual and the healthcare organisation, here represented by the politicians, expected actions entail a shared commitment to maintain health. The expected conditions for acting refer to the politician’s awareness of the factors influencing the women’s decision to undergo or refuse the screening and having the resources to enable taking actions to facilitate participation.

Conclusions

Expected actions and expected conditions for acting are tightly connected and entail some form of prioritisation by the politicians. Setting the priorities can be based on information about the purpose of the screening and an understanding of social determinants’ impacts on women’s decision to refrain from mammographic screening, as well as available resources.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13690-021-00576-6.

Responsibility for Funding Refractive Correction in Publicly Funded Health Care Systems: An Ethical Analysis

Allocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

Hope or despair: a response to 'Do not despair about severity-yet'

This is a brief response to 'Do not despair about severity-yet' by Barra et al It argues that they have no serious criticisms of Daniel Hausman's essay, 'The Significance of Severity'" and that indeed their work lends further support to his view that there is no justification for prioritising severity. As policy-akers, Barra and his coauthors are more constrained by popular attitudes, which apparently favour prioritising severity.

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.

Understanding and using patient experiences as evidence in healthcare priority setting

BACKGROUND

In many countries, committees make priority-setting decisions in order to control healthcare costs. These decisions take into account relevant criteria, including clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and need, and are supported by evidence usually drawn from clinical and economic studies. These sources of evidence do not include the specific perspective and information that patients can provide about the condition and treatment.

METHODS

Drawing on arguments from political philosophy and ethics that are the ethical basis for many priority-setting bodies, the authors argue that criteria like need and its effects on patients and caregivers are best supported by evidence generated from patients' experiences. Social sciences and mixed-methods research support the generation and collection of robust evidence.

RESULTS

Patient experience is required for a decision-making process that considers all relevant evidence. For fair priority-setting, decision-makers should consider relevant evidence and reasons, so patient experience evidence should not be ignored. Patient experience must be gathered in a way that generates high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence. Established quantitative and qualitative methods can assure that evidence is systematic, adherent to quality standards, and valid. Patient, like clinical, evidence should be subject to a transparent review process.

DISCUSSION

Considering all relevant evidence gives each person an equal opportunity at having their treatment funded. Patient experience gives context to the clinical evidence and also directly informs our understanding of the nature of the condition and its effects, including patients' needs, how to meet them, and the burden of illness. Such evidence also serves to contextualise reported effects of the treatment. The requirement to include patient experience as evidence has important policy implications for bodies that make priority-setting decisions since it proposes that new types of evidence reviews are commissioned and considered.