Determining social values for resource allocation decision-making in cancer care: a Canadian experiment

Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs

Health system decision-makers need to understand the value of new technology to make "value for money" decisions. Typically, narrow definitions of value are used. This paper reports on a Canadian Citizens' Jury which was convened to elicit those aspects of value that are important to the public. The criteria used by the public to determine value included those related to the patient, those directly related to caregivers and those directly created for society. Their choices were not binary (e.g., cost vs. health gained), but rather involved multiple factors (e.g., with respect to patient factors: disease severity, health gained with the drug, existence of alternatives, life expectancy, patient age and affordability). Overall, Jurors prioritized funding treatments for ultra-rare disease populations when the treatment offered significant improvements in health and quality of life, and when the pre-treatment health state was considered extremely poor. The prevalence of the disease by itself was not a factor in the choices. Some of the findings differ from previous work, which use survey methods. In our Citizens' Jury, Jurors were able to become more familiar with the question at hand and were exposed to a broad and balanced collection of viewpoints before and throughout engaging in the exercises. This deliberative approach allows for a more nuanced approach to understanding value.

Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities

BACKGROUND

The perspectives of citizens are an important and often overlooked source of evidence for informing health policy. Despite growing encouragement for its adoption, little is known regarding how citizen engagement may be integrated into evidence-informed health policy-making in low- and middle-income counties (LMICs) and newly democratic states (NDSs). We aimed to identify the factors and variables affecting the potential integration of citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in LMICs and NDSs and understand whether its implementation may require a different approach outside of high-income western democracies. Further, we assessed the context-specific considerations for the practical implementation of citizen engagement in one focus region-eastern Europe and central Asia.

METHODS

First, adopting a scoping review methodology, we conducted and updated searches of six electronic databases, as well as a comprehensive grey literature search, on citizen engagement in LMICs and NDSs, published before December 2019. We extracted insights about the approaches to citizen engagement, as well as implementation considerations (facilitators and barriers) and additional political factors, in developing an analysis framework. Second, we undertook exploratory methods to identify relevant literature on the socio-political environment of the focus region, before subjecting these sources to the same analysis framework.

RESULTS

Our searches identified 479 unique sources, of which 28 were adjudged to be relevant. The effective integration of citizen engagement within policy-making processes in LMICs and NDSs was found to be predominantly dependent upon the willingness and capacity of citizens and policy-makers. In the focus region, the implementation of citizen engagement within evidence-informed health policy-making is constrained by a lack of mutual trust between citizens and policy-makers. This is exacerbated by inadequate incentives and capacity for either side to engage.

CONCLUSIONS

This research found no reason why citizen engagement could not adopt the same form in LMICs and NDSs as it does in high-income western democracies. However, it is recognized that certain political contexts may require additional support in developing and implementing citizen engagement, such as through trialling mechanisms at subnational scales. While specifically outlining the potential for citizen engagement, this study highlights the need for further research on its practical implementation.

More than cost-effectiveness? Applying a second-stage filter to improve policy decision making

Background

Apart from cost‐effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health‐care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations.

Objective

To demonstrate a structured approach for eliciting and evaluating a broad range of assessment criteria, including key stakeholders’ values, aiming to support decision makers in priority setting.

Methods

For a set of cost‐effective substitute interventions for depression care, the appraisal criteria were adopted from the Australian Assessing Cost‐Effectiveness initiative. All substitute interventions were assessed in an appraisal, using focus group discussions and semi‐structured interviews conducted among key stakeholders.

Results

Appraisal of the substitute cost‐effective interventions yielded an overview of considerations and an overall recommendation for decision makers. Two out of the thirteen pairs were deemed acceptable and realistic, that is investment in therapist‐guided and Internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy instead of cognitive behavioural therapy in mild depression, and investment in combination therapy rather than individual psychotherapy in severe depression. In the remaining substitution pairs, substantive issues affected acceptability. The key issues identified were as follows: workforce capacity, lack of stakeholder support and the need for change in clinicians’ attitude.

Conclusions

Systematic identification of stakeholders’ considerations allows decision makers to prioritize among cost‐effective policy options. Moreover, this approach entails an explicit and transparent priority‐setting procedure and provides insights into the intended and unintended consequences of using a certain health technology.

Patient contribution

Patients were involved in the conduct of the study for instance, by sharing their values regarding considerations relevant for priority setting.

Identifying approaches for synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations in health policy: a scoping review

Objective

Public deliberations are an increasingly popular tool to engage citizens in the development of health policies and programmes. However, limited research has been conducted on how to best synthesize and summarize information on health policy issues for citizens. To begin to address this gap, our aim was to map the literature on the preparation of information to support informed citizen deliberations related to health policy issues.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review where two reviewers screened the results of electronic database searches, grey literature searches and hand searches of organizational websites to identify empirical studies, scholarly commentaries, and publicly available organizational documents focused on synthesizing and summarizing information to inform citizen deliberation about health policy issues. Two reviewers categorized each included document according to themes/topics of deliberation, purpose of deliberation and the form of deliberation, and developed a summary of the key findings related to synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations.

Results

There was limited reporting about whether and how information was synthesized. Evidence was typically organized based on the source used (e.g. by comparing the views of stakeholders or experts) or according to the areas that policymakers need to consider when making decisions (e.g. benefits, harms, costs and stakeholder perspectives related to policy options). Information was presented primarily through written materials (e.g. briefs and brochures), audiovisual resources (e.g. videos or presentations from stakeholders), but some interactive presentation approaches were also identified (e.g. through interactive arts-based approaches).

Conclusions

The choice and framing of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy can strongly influence their understanding of a policy issue, and has the potential to impact the discussions and recommendations that emerge from deliberations. Our review confirmed that there remains a dearth of literature describing methods of the preparation of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy issues. This highlights the need for further exploration of optimal strategies for citizen-friendly approaches to synthesizing and summarizing information for deliberations.

Approaches to Capturing Value in Oncology

This article sets out to describe different value frameworks in the field of new developments in oncology. Since the costs of new oncological therapies follow a steep path, their implementation and financing demand a thorough assessment. This is an ambitious task due to the complex nature of oncological treatments within overall health policy. Five value frameworks were reviewed: European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework (version 2.0), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Value Assessment Framework. They are all based on a large set of criteria. However, all these frameworks differ considerably in their outcomes. Among the main differences one has to cite are the inclusion of costs and the use of different outcomes, as well as the fact that they address different target stakeholders, etc. Despite these shortcomings, the value frameworks serve the necessity to introduce more rationality in health decision making seen from the perspective of physicians, patients, and financing bodies.

Involving Citizen-Patients in the Development of Telehealth Services: Qualitative Study of Experts' and Citizen-Patients' Perspectives

Background

Decisions regarding telehealth services in Quebec (Canada) have been largely technocratic by nature for the last 15 years, and the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services is virtually nonexistent. In view of the societal challenges that telehealth raises, citizen-patient involvement could ensure more balance between evidence from traditional research methodologies and technical experts and the needs and expectations of populations in decisions about telehealth services.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the perception of various stakeholders (decision makers, telehealth program and policy managers, clinicians, researchers, evaluators, and citizen-patients) regarding the involvement of citizen-patients in the development of telehealth services in Quebec. In particular, we explored its potential advantages, added value, obstacles, and challenges it raises for decision making.

Methods

We used a qualitative research approach based on semistructured individual interviews, with a total of 29 key actors. Respondents were identified by the contact network method. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A pragmatic content thematic analysis was performed. To increase the capacity for interpretation and analysis, we were guided by the principle of data triangulation.

Results

Citizen-patient involvement in decision making is perceived more as a theoretical idea than as a practical reality in health care organizations or in the health system. There is very little connection between citizen involvement structures or patient and user groups and telehealth leaders. For the respondents, citizen-patient involvement in telehealth could increase the accountability and transparency of decision making and make it more pragmatic within an innovation-driven health system. This involvement could also make citizen-patients ambassadors and promoters of telehealth and improve the quality and organization of health services while ensuring they are more socially relevant. Challenges and constraints that were reported include the ambiguity of the citizen-patient, who should be involved and how, claimant citizen-patient, the risk of professionalization of citizen-patient involvement, and the gap between decision time versus time to involve the citizen-patient.

Conclusions

This study provides a basis for future research on the potential of involving citizen-patients in telehealth. There is a great need for research on the issue of citizen-patient involvement as an organizational innovation (in terms of decision-making model). Research on the organizational predisposition and preparation for such a change becomes central. More efforts to synthesize and translate knowledge on public participation in decision making in the health sector, particularly in the field of technology development, are needed.

Can Severity Outweigh Smaller Numbers? A Deliberative Perspective from Canada

OBJECTIVES

To use structured deliberation to elicit and describe the values of the public in Alberta, Canada, on the question of whether the severity of a rare condition can justify it being given priority in funding over common conditions affecting larger numbers of patients, and what aspects of a condition drive this judgment.

METHODS

Thematic analysis of transcripts of a group deliberative exercise carried out as part of two citizens' juries. The exercise was designed to elicit participants' conception of disease severity, and trade-offs between helping small groups with severe conditions and larger groups with less severe conditions.

RESULTS

In trading off severity and numbers, all groups were willing to choose a more severely ill but smaller group of patients over a less severely ill but larger group of patients, although how much of a severity differential was required varied between groups. Pain that could not be relieved by alternative means was the strongest motivator for choosing the smaller group. Other symptoms with no alternative means of relief were strong motivators as well.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that, all else being equal, the public would support giving priority to a smaller but more severely ill group of patients over a larger group when prioritizing the needs of the few is life-saving, extends life enough to give hope of future improvement, and relieves otherwise intractable symptoms, especially pain.

The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions

CONTEXT

Policy makers and insurance companies decide on coverage of care by both calculating (cost-) effectiveness and assessing the necessity of coverage.

AIM

To investigate argumentations pertaining to necessity used in coverage decisions made by policy makers and insurance companies, as well as those argumentations used by patients, authors, the public and the media.

METHODS

This study is designed as a realist review, adhering to the RAMESES quality standards. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched and 98 articles were included that detailed necessity-based argumentations.

RESULTS

We identified twenty necessity-based argumentation types. Seven are only used to argue in favour of coverage, five solely for arguing against coverage, and eight are used to argue both ways. A positive decision appears to be facilitated when patients or the public set the decision on the agenda. Moreover, half the argumentation types are only used by patients, authors, the public and the media, whereas the other half is also used by policy makers and insurance companies. The latter group is more accepted and used in more different countries.

CONCLUSION

The majority of necessity-based argumentation types is used for either favouring or opposing coverage, and not for both. Patients, authors, the public and the media use a broader repertoire of argumentation types than policy makers and insurance companies.

Did It Matter That the Cancer Drugs Fund Was Not NICE? A Retrospective Review

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) will have spent more than £1 billion between October 2010 and the introduction of reforms to its structure and operations in July 2016. There has been much more debate about the existence of the fund than about how it spent its substantial budget. It is important to undertake a retrospective examination of "where the money went" in light of the substantial reforms that will be introduced in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

We review the means by which the CDF made recent funding decisions for cancer drugs to provide an assessment of the merits of the CDF "model" as a basis for allocation decisions. We assess the extent to which proposed reforms could overcome defects in the original CDF model of prioritization, and lessons for other countries.

METHODS

We provide a narrative commentary on CDF's methods and processes since 2014. We evaluate methods against best practice in cost-effectiveness analysis, and processes against the "accountability for reasonableness" framework. We comment on reforms to the fund.

RESULTS

There are no grounds for concluding that the opportunity costs imposed on cancer patients were well evidenced, or the product of legitimate deliberative processes. We note that some of these issues will be addressed in the next incarnation of the fund, but the rationale for the fund's existence remains unconvincing.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important and timely to debate how cancer drugs appraisal ought to be conducted to confront the consequences of CDF's model of appraisal. We conclude that it did matter that the CDF was not NICE.