Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach.

METHODS

We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Stakeholders' Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria

Background

In recent years, involvement of healthcare stakeholders in health technology assessment (HTA) has been discussed as helping the inclusion of social values in the decision-making process. The aim of our research was to identify and compare details from Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria on their stakeholders' involvement in the HTA process. Information was sought on their identification, responsibilities, and regulation.

Methods

We conducted a survey of seven types of stakeholders in the healthcare systems of Kazakhstan, Poland, and Bulgaria. They included patients and the public, providers, purchasers, payers, policy makers, product makers, and principal investigators. They were questioned on their involvement in the HTA process, and on the objectives of their participation.

Results

Levels of involvement of different kinds of stakeholder varied between countries, reflecting political and administrative developments. There was full or partial agreement on the objectives of stakeholder participation. All respondents agreed that representatives of the ministry of health should be involved in selection of stakeholders for HTA.

Conclusion

Progress has been made in the involvement of stakeholders, with interest in further development in all three countries.

Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement

In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers.

Action Opportunities to Pursue Responsible Digital Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Responsible digital care refers to any intentional systematic effort designed to increase the likelihood of a digital care technology developed through ethical decision-making, being socially responsible and aligned with the values and well-being of those impacted by it.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to present examples of action opportunities for (1) designing "technology"; (2) shaping the "context" of use; and (3) adjusting the behavior of "users" to guide responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities.

METHODS

Three cases were considered: (1) design of a web application to support the preparation of meals for groups of people with intellectual disabilities, (2) implementation of an app to help people with intellectual disabilities regulate their stress independently, and (3) implementation of a social robot to stimulate interaction and physical activity among people with intellectual disabilities. Overall, 26 stakeholders participated in 3 multistakeholder workshops (case 1: 10/26, 38%; case 2: 10/26, 38%; case 3: 6/26, 23%) based on the "guidance ethics approach." We identified stakeholders' values based on bottom-up exploration of experienced and expected effects of using the technology, and we formulated action opportunities for these values in the specific context of use. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Overall, 232 effects, 33 values, and 156 action opportunities were collected. General and case-specific themes were identified. Important stakeholder values included quality of care, autonomy, efficiency, health, enjoyment, reliability, and privacy. Both positive and negative effects could underlie stakeholders' values and influence the development of action opportunities. Action opportunities comprised the following: (1) technology: development of the technology (eg, user experience and customization), technology input (eg, recipes for meals, intervention options for reducing stress, and activities), and technology output (eg, storage and use of data); (2) context: guidelines, training and support, policy or agreements, and adjusting the physical environment in which the technology is used; and (3) users: integrating the technology into daily care practice, by diminishing (eg, "letting go" to increase the autonomy of people with intellectual disabilities), retaining (eg, face-to-face contact), and adding (eg, evaluation moments) certain behaviors of care professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to provide insight into responsible digital care for people with intellectual disabilities by means of bottom-up exploration of action opportunities to take account of stakeholders' values in designing technology, shaping the context of use, and adjusting the behavior of users. Although part of the findings may be generalized, case-specific insights and a complementary top-down approach (eg, predefined ethical frameworks) are essential. The findings represent a part of an ethical discourse that requires follow-up to meet the dynamism of stakeholders' values and further develop and implement action opportunities to achieve socially desirable, ethically acceptable, and sustainable digital care that improves the lives of people with intellectual disabilities.

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.

Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders' views through a Web-Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of health technology assessment for evaluating medical devices require including aspects that different stakeholders consider relevant, beyond cost and effectiveness. However, the involvement of stakeholders in sharing their views still needs to be improved.

OBJECTIVE

This article explores the relevance of distinct value aspects for evaluating different types of medical devices according to stakeholders' views.

METHODS

Thirty-four value aspects collected through literature review and expert validation were the input for a 2-round Web-Delphi process. In the Web-Delphi, a panel of participants from five stakeholders' groups (healthcare professionals, buyers and policymakers, academics, industry, and patients and citizens) judged the relevance of each aspect, by assigning a relevance-level ('Critical', 'Fundamental', 'Complementary', or 'Irrelevant'), for two types of medical devices separately: 'Implantable' and 'In vitro tests based on biomarkers'. Opinions were analysed at the panel and group level, and similarities across devices were identified.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four participants completed the process. No aspects were considered 'Irrelevant', neither for the panel nor for stakeholder groups, in both types of devices. The panel considered effectiveness and safety-related aspects 'Critical' (e.g., 'Adverse events for the patient'), and costs-related aspects 'Fundamental' (e.g., 'Cost of the medical device'). Several additional aspects not included in existing frameworks' literature, e.g., related to environmental impact and devices' usage by the healthcare professional, were deemed as relevant by the panel. A moderate to substantial agreement across and within groups was observed.

CONCLUSION

Different stakeholders agree on the relevance of including multiple aspects in medical devices' evaluation. This study produces key information to inform the development of frameworks for valuing medical devices, and to guide evidence collection.

The Value of Explicit, Deliberative, and Context-Specified Ethics Analysis for Health Technology Assessment: Evidence From a Novel Approach Piloted in South Africa

OBJECTIVES

This article explores the perceived value, including associated strengths and challenges, of using a context-specified ethics framework to guide deliberative health technology appraisals.

METHODS

The South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) approach, piloted in South Africa, consisted of 2 phases: (1) convening a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework and (2) testing the provisional ethics framework through simulated health technology assessment appraisal committee meetings (SACs). Three SACs each reviewed 2 case studies of sample health interventions using the framework. Participants completed postappraisal questionnaires and engaged in focus group discussions.

RESULTS

The SACs involved 27 participants across 3 provinces. Findings from the postappraisal questionnaires demonstrated general support for the SAVE-UHC approach and content of the framework, high levels of satisfaction with the recommendations produced, and general sentiment that participants were able to actively contribute to appraisals. Qualitative data showed participants perceived using a context-specified ethics framework in deliberative decision making: (1) supported wider consideration of and deliberation about morally relevant features of the health coverage decisions, thereby contributing to quality of appraisals; (2) could improve transparency; and (3) offered benefits to those directly involved in the priority-setting process. Participants also identified some challenges and concerns associated with the approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAVE-UHC approach presents a novel way to develop and pilot a locally contextualized, explicit ethics framework for health priority setting. This work highlights how the combination of a context-specified ethics framework and structured deliberative appraisals can contribute to the quality of health technology appraisals and transparency of health priority setting.

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues

BACKGROUND

A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated.

METHODS

We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review.

RESULTS

We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

A Systems-Based Framework for Immunisation System Design: Six Loops, Three Flows, Two Paradigms

Despite massive progress in vaccine coverage globally, the region of sub-Saharan Africa is lagging behind for Sustainable Development Goal 3 by 2030. Sub-national under-immunisation is part of the problem. In order to reverse the current immunisation system's (IMS) underperformance, a conceptual model is proposed that captures the complexity of IMSs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and offers directions for sustainable redesign. The IMS model was constructed based on literature and stakeholder interaction in Rwanda and Kenya. The model assembles the paradigms of planned and emergency immunisation in one system and emphasises the synchronised flows of vaccinee, vaccinator and vaccine. Six feedback loops capture the main mechanisms governing the system. Sustainability and resilience are assessed based on loop dominance and dependency on exogenous factors. The diagram invites stakeholders to share their mental models and. The framework provides a systems approach for problem structuring and policy design.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Insurance Benefit Package Revision in Iran

BACKGROUND

Iran considers the revision of its health insurance benefit package (HIBP) as a means to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Yet, its decision-making process has been criticised for being weak in terms of accountability and transparency. This paper reports on the development and implementation of the HIBP revision in Iran in the period 2019-2021, employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a framework for benefit package design with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making.

METHODS

The High Council for Health Insurance (HCHI) is coordinating the HIBP revision: it planned the six steps of the EDP framework with support from World Health Organization (WHO) and Radboudumc in 2019, and conducted a pilot project on multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis and treatment in 2020.

RESULTS

Implementation of the MS pilot project concerned the installation of advisory committees (involving some 60 stakeholders in supportive task forces, a technical working group [TWG] and a national advisory committee [NAC]), the selection of decision criteria (relating to quality of care, necessity, and sustainability), the inclusion of services for evaluation (nine in total), and the assessment and appraisal of these services.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the priority setting process for MS diagnosis and treatment services has likely improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders who engaged in deliberation based on available evidence in a stepwise, transparent process. It is expected to improve the quality of care for MS patients as well as its financial accessibility, at a zero net budget impact. The pilot project has served to help Iran's health system move faster toward UHC for a broader range of essential health services.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.

METHODS

Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.

RESULTS

EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries

Covid-19 requires policy makers to consider evidence on both population health and economic welfare. Over the last two decades, the field of health economics has developed a range of analytical approaches and contributed to the institutionalisation of processes to employ economic evidence in health policy. We present a discussion outlining how these approaches and processes need to be applied more widely to inform Covid-19 policy; highlighting where they may need to be adapted conceptually and methodologically, and providing examples of work to date. We focus on the evidential and policy needs of low- and middle-income countries; where there is an urgent need for evidence to navigate the policy trade-offs between health and economic well-being posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Systematic literature review on the implicit factors influencing the HTA deliberative process in Europe

Objectives

Deliberative processes in Health Technologies Assessment (HTA) result in recommendations that determine the reimbursement of medicines, diagnostics or devices. These processes are governed by explicit criteria, but are also influenced by implicit factors. The objective of this work was to identify the implicit factors influencing HTA deliberative processes in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

Methods

A systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2019 was conducted. The search was performed in Pubmed, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Center for Reviews and Dissemination. The ISPOR database was searched manually.

Results

Out of 100 eligible publications, eight articles were selected for data extraction and analysis. The implicit factors in the HTA deliberative process most frequently mentioned in the identified literature are value judgments, biases, preferences and subjectivity. Five out of the eight articles highlight the need to further improve the transparency of the process, and three provide recommendations on how to address the influence of implicit factors on the HTA deliberative process through a framework.

Conclusion

Even in countries with a long HTA history, evidence on implicit factors is scarce. Some methods have been recommended for addressing these factors. Further research is required to characterize the implicit factors in the HTA deliberative process at a country level and explore potential ways to mitigate the influence of these factors on the HTA deliberative process.

Under careful construction: combining findings, arguments, and values into robust health care coverage decisions

Background

Health care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement at a national level. The coverage decision report, i.e., the publicly available document giving reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decisions.

Methods

This study describes a model for combining different elements in coverage decisions. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n = 2, with field notes taken) and the corresponding audio files (n = 3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n = 10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n = 5 in three interviews), and relevant documents (n = 4).

Results

We conceptualise decisions as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision.

Conclusions

Based on the proposed model, we suggest actively identifying a wider variety of elements and stepping up in terms of engaging patients and the public, including facilitating appeals. Future research could explore how different actors perceive the robustness of decisions and how this relates to their perceived legitimacy.

Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations

Innovations permeate healthcare settings on an ever-increasing scale. Health technology innovations (HTIs) impact our perceptions and experiences of health, care, disease, etc. Because of the fast pace these HTIs are being introduced in different healthcare settings, there is a growing societal consensus that these HTIs need to be governed by ethical reflection. This paper reports a systematic review of argument-based literature which focused on articles reporting on ethical frameworks to screen or evaluate HTIs. To do this a four step methodology was followed: (1) Literature search conducted in five electronic literature databases; (2) Identification of relevant articles; (3) Development of data-extraction tool to analyze the included articles; (4) Analysis, synthesis of data and reporting of results. Fifty-seven articles were included, each reporting on a specific ethical framework. These ethical frameworks existed out of characteristics which were grouped into five common ones: (1) Motivations for development and use of frameworks; (2) Objectives of using frameworks; (3) Specific characteristics of frameworks (background context, scope, and focus); (4) Ethical approaches and concepts used in the frameworks; (5) Methods to use the frameworks. Although this multiplicity of ethical frameworks shows an increasing importance of ethically analyzing HTIs, it remains unclear what the specific role is of these analyses. An ethics of caution, on which ethical frameworks rely, guides HTIs in their design, development, implementation, without questioning their technological paradigm. An ethics of desirability questions this paradigm, without guiding HTIs. In the end, a place needs to be found in-between, to critically assess HTIs.

Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain)

Early access to medicines allows the prescription of a medicine before it is available in the public formulary to patients with severe or rare diseases with high unmet needs who have no authorised therapeutic alternatives available. In this context, consistent decision making is difficult, and a systematic assessment procedure could be useful to tackle complex situations and guarantee the equity of medicines’ access. A multidisciplinary panel (MP) conducted four workshops to develop an early access framework based on a reflective multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). A set of 12 criteria was agreed: eight quantitative (severity of disease, urgency, efficacy, safety, internal and external validity, therapeutic benefit and plausibility) and four qualitative (therapeutic alternative, existence of precedents, management impact and costs). Quantitative criteria were weighted using a five-point scale. The relative importance of quantitative criteria had mean weights from 4.7 to 3.6, showing its relevance in the decisions. The framework was tested using two case studies, and reliability was assessed by re-test. The re-test revealed no statistical differences, indicating the consistency and replicability of the framework developed. MCDA may help to structure discussions for heterogeneous treatment requests, providing predictability and robustness in decision making involving sensitive and complex situations.

Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles

Reflecting a 'participatory turn' in healthcare, a variety of activities have been adopted in many countries to harness the views of patients, relatives and service users. While celebrated as a way of empowering patients and increasing the legitimacy of decisions that impact on patient care, critics contend that practices of patient participation often fall short of the ideals they purport to implement. In this article, we investigate how patients' participation in medical priority setting corresponds with the regulative ideals of deliberation and how the practices of participation influence the ability of patients to make their voices heard. Building on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 12 patient representatives and four scientific officers in the Danish Medicines Council, the analysis demonstrates that conflicting notions of valid knowledge constituted a main challenge for patient participation. The study contributes to the literature on patient participation through a conceptualization of four co-existing participant roles: 1) compliant keepers of experiential knowledge, 2) lay experts investing in evidence production, 3) knowledge translators engaged in alliance building, and 4) demonstrators promoting public contestation. We suggest that a main challenge for PP initiatives is to take into account this variation in patients' engagement.

Meta-Decision in Healthcare

Meta-decision as a junction between evidence and its rightful implementation is suggested in this review as a structured framework applied in healthcare, valuable to clinicians and healthcare decision-makers. The process of meta-decision requires optimum measurements to provide data necessary for identifying and developing decision alternatives and explicitly reflect on its value and choose the optimum decision. The location of value in the meta-decision framework is core component. Of equal importance are prerequisites for decision-makers' abilities to make meta-decisions and focus on optimum team environments. As well as improving their decision-making process through reflection and learning.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

CONTEXT

'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.

METHODS

This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses.

FINDINGS

Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy, Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to "enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA."

Multiple criteria decision analysis for medicine reimbursement in the Lebanese context

Objective

The objective of this exploratory analysis is to reflect and discuss which criteria of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) would be relevant as part of value determination when appraising healthcare interventions in the Lebanese context.

Methods

A workshop was conducted as part of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Lebanon Chapter and included the two frameworks: Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) and Advance Value Framework. Thirty-seven participants expressed their individual preferences through a qualitative and a quantitative exercise.

Results

In the qualitative analysis of both frameworks, participants unanimously agreed on the relevance of comparative efficacy, safety, and impact of medical costs. In EVIDEM, disease severity and unmet needs were also considered to be important criteria by more than 90 percent of the participants. In the quantitative analysis of both frameworks, disease severity ranked first (a mean normalized weight of .1 in EVIDEM and .27 in Advance Value Framework), followed by the size of the population (.09), the type of therapeutic benefit at the patient level (.09) and population level (.08), and the efficacy (.07) in EVIDEM. In the Advance Value Framework, the combined unmet need/disease severity criteria were followed by direct and meaningful end points (.15), safety (.12), contraindications (.08), and indirect surrogate end points (.07).

Conclusions

The results were concordant with those reported in countries that have conducted similar surveys such as France, Italy, and Spain. The MCDA methodology could be used as a cornerstone to enhance evidence-based discussions among Lebanese stakeholders involved in evaluation and decision-making purposes.

WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19

Introduction

Public health decision-making requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, participatory, evidence-informed decision-making processes to identify and weigh these factors are often not possible- especially, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered.

Objective

To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Methods

We employed the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework as a starting point. First, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to case studies. Next, we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we developed the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework version 1.0.

Results

Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were analysed. The revised framework consists of 11+1 criteria, supported by 48 aspects, and embraces a complex systems perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental and economic implications, as well as implementation, resource and feasibility considerations.

Discussion

The proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes.

Assessing Urban Health Inequities through a Multidimensional and Participatory Framework: Evidence from the EURO-HEALTHY Project

Urban health inequities often reflect and follow the geographic patterns of inequality in the social, economic and environmental conditions within a city-the so-called determinants of health. Evidence of patterns within these conditions can support decision-making by identifying where action is urgent and which policies and interventions are needed to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts. Within the scope of the EU-funded project EURO-HEALTHY (Shaping EUROpean policies to promote HEALTH equitY), the City of Lisbon was selected as a case study to apply a multidimensional and participatory assessment approach of urban health whose purpose was to inform the evaluation of policies and interventions with potential to address local health gaps. In this paper, we present the set of indicators identified as drivers of urban health inequities within the City of Lisbon, exploring the added value of using a spatial indicator framework together with a participation process to orient a place-based assessment and to inform policies aimed at reducing health inequities. Two workshops with a panel of local stakeholders from health and social care services, municipal departments (e.g. urban planning, environment, social rights and education) and non-governmental and community-based organizations were organized. The aim was to engage local stakeholders to identify locally critical situations and select indicators of health determinants from a spatial equity perspective. To support the analysis, a matrix of 46 indicators of health determinants, with data disaggregated at the city neighbourhood scale, was constructed and was complemented with maps. The panel identified critical situations for urban health equity in 28 indicators across eight intervention axes: economic conditions, social protection and security; education; demographic change; lifestyles and behaviours; physical environment; built environment; road safety and healthcare resources and performance. The geographical distribution of identified critical situations showed that all 24 city neighbourhoods presented one or more problems. A group of neighbourhoods systematically perform worse in most indicators from different intervention axes, requiring not only priority action but mainly a multi- and intersectoral policy response. The indicator matrices and maps have provided a snapshot of urban inequities across different intervention axes, making a compelling argument for boosting intersectoral work across municipal departments and local stakeholders in the City of Lisbon. This study, by integrating local evidence in combination with social elements, pinpoints the importance of a place-based approach for assessing urban health equity.

Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries

Covid-19 requires policy makers to consider evidence on both population health and economic welfare. Over the last two decades, the field of health economics has developed a range of analytical approaches and contributed to the institutionalisation of processes to employ economic evidence in health policy. We present a discussion outlining how these approaches and processes need to be applied more widely to inform Covid-19 policy; highlighting where they may need to be adapted conceptually and methodologically, and providing examples of work to date. We focus on the evidential and policy needs of low- and middle-income countries; where there is an urgent need for evidence to navigate the policy trade-offs between health and economic well-being posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory.

RESULTS

We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings.

CONCLUSION

Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.

Potential Criteria for Frameworks to Support the Evaluation of Innovative Medicines in Upper Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Literature Review on Value Frameworks and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

Background

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a formal decision support framework, has been growing in popularity recently in the field of health care. MCDA can support pricing and reimbursement decisions on the macro level, which is of great importance especially in countries with more limited resources.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to facilitate the development of future MCDA frameworks, by proposing a set of criteria focusing on the purchasing decisions of single-source innovative pharmaceuticals in upper middle-income countries.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted on the decision criteria included in value frameworks (VFs) or MCDA tools. Scopus, Medline, databases of universities, websites of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, and other relevant organizations were included in the search. Double title-abstract screening and double full-text review were conducted, and all extracted data were double-checked. A team of researchers performed the merging and selection process of the extracted criteria.

Results

A total of 1,878 articles entered the title and abstract screening. From these, 341 were eligible to the full-text review, and 36 were included in the final data extraction phase. From these articles 394 criteria were extracted in total. After deduplication and clustering, 26 different criteria were identified. After the merging and selection process, a set of 16 general criteria was proposed.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the systematic literature review, a pool of 16 criteria was selected. This can serve as a starting point for constructing MCDA frameworks in upper middle-income countries after careful adaptation to the local context.

Can multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) be implemented into real-world drug decision-making processes? A Canadian provincial experience

OBJECTIVE

To describe the implementation of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into a Canadian public drug reimbursement decision-making process, identifying the aspects of the MCDA approach, and the context that promoted uptake.

METHODS

Narrative summary of case study describing the how, when, and why of implementing MCDA.

RESULTS

Faced with a fixed budget, a pipeline of expensive but potentially valuable drugs, and potential delays to drug decision making, the Ministry of Health (i.e., decision makers) and its independent expert advisory committee (IAB) sought alternative values-based decision processes. MCDA was considered highly compatible with current processes, but the ability as a stand-alone intervention to address issues of opportunity cost was unclear. The IAB nevertheless collaboratively voted to implement an externally developed MCDA with support from decision makers. After several months of engagement and piloting, implementation was rapid and leveraged strong pre-existing formal and informal communication networks. The IAB as a whole rates new submissions which serves as an input into the deliberative process.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA can be a highly adaptable approach that can be implemented into a functioning drug reimbursement setting when facilitated by (i) a truly limited budget; (ii) a shared vision for change by end-users and decision makers; (iii) using pre-existing deliberative processes; and (iv) viewing the approach as a decision framework rather than the decision (when appropriate). Given the current limitations of MCDA, implementing an academically imperfect tool first and evaluating later reflects a practical solution to real-time fiscal constraints and impending delays to drug approvals that may be faced by decision makers.

Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes toward more legitimate decision making. A survey among members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) showed that EDPs can also be relevant for countries that have not (yet) established such an agency. Therefore, we explored to what extent low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) applied the steps and elements stipulated in the EDP framework and their need for guidance.

METHODS

The survey among INAHTA members was slightly adapted to address LMIC context and sent to 416 experts identified through several HTA sources. The questions focused on contextual factors and the EDP steps (installation of an appraisal committee, selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, communication and appeal). Data collection took place between 21 May and 1 September 2019. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to summarize the findings.

RESULTS

We received sixty-six meaningful responses from experts in thirty-two LMIC. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development are overall not present or only present to some extent. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, as well as communication and appeal.

CONCLUSIONS

EDPs have the potential to provide steps for improving HTA processes. The results of this study can serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation of EDP application in the responding LMIC. This could support the countries in improving their processes and enhancing legitimate decision making when using HTA.

'Power plays plus push': experts' insights into the development and implementation of active tuberculosis case-finding policies globally, a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore experts' views on factors influencing national and global active case-finding (ACF) policy development and implementation, and the use of evidence in these processes.

DESIGN

This is an exploratory study based on semistructured expert interviews. Framework analysis was applied.

PARTICIPANTS

The study involved a purposive sample of 39 experts from international, non-governmental and non-profit organisations, funders, government institutions, international societies, think tanks, universities and research institutions worldwide.

RESULTS

This study highlighted the perceived need among experts for different types of evidence for ACF policy development and implementation, and for stakeholder engagement including researchers and policymakers to foster evidence use. Interviewees stressed the influence of government, donor and non-governmental stakeholders in ACF policy development. Such key stakeholders also influence ACF policy implementation, in addition to available systems and processes in a given health system, and implementers' motivation and incentives. According to the interviewees, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for systematic screening face the innate challenge of providing guidance to countries across the broad area of ACF in terms of target groups, settings and screening algorithms. The guidelines could be improved by focusing on what should be done rather than what can be done in ACF, and by providing howto examples. Leadership, integration into health systems and long-term financing are key for ACF to be sustainable.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide new insights into ACF policy processes globally, particularly regarding facilitators for and barriers to ACF policy development, evidence need and use, and donor organisations' influence. According to expert participants, national and global ACF policy development and implementation can be improved by broadening stakeholder engagement. Meanwhile, using diverse evidence to inform ACF policy development and implementation could mitigate the 'power plays plus push' that might otherwise disrupt and mislead these policy processes.

Incorporating the Environmental Impact into a Budget Impact Analysis: The Example of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable Inhaler

BACKGROUND

RESPIMAT® re-usable enables patients to re-use the inhaler and its availability therefore reduces the number of inhalers and associated wastage.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation that incorporates the ecological impact of adopting RESPIMAT re-usable into the healthcare system in Germany.

METHODS

Inhaler costs and environmental impact over 5 years in Germany in a scenario with RESPIMAT re-usable compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable were estimated using a budget impact model. The carbon emissions were derived for each treatment pattern considering the whole life cycle (cradle-to-grave) of the inhaler product. The cost of carbon emissions was estimated using a societal cost per ton of carbon emission.

RESULTS

By introducing RESPIMAT re-usable in Germany, it was estimated that by 2023, the number of inhalers used would have decreased by 5,748,750 compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable. In addition, this measure would reduce the environmental burden of inhaler use while at the same time reducing medical cost of inhalers.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting RESPIMAT® re-usable to the national healthcare services may be a cost-saving option, which has the additional benefit of reducing the societal cost of carbon emissions.

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand

Background

Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries’ approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries’ approaches.

Methods

To describe two countries’ deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country’s rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes.

Results

In both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries’ new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

To face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium’s and New Zealand’s public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system’s priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.

Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software in Healthcare Priority Setting: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this systematic review were to identify studies using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) software tools to support health prioritisation processes and describe the technical capabilities of the MCDA software tools identified.

METHODS

First, a systematic literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit and Cochrane databases in July 2019 to identify studies that have used MCDA software for priority setting in health-related problems. Second, the MCDA software tools found in the review were downloaded (full versions, where freely available, and trial versions otherwise) and tested to extract their key technical characteristics.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included, from which seven different software tools, 1000minds^®, M-MACBETH, Socio Technical Allocation of Resources (STAR), Strategic Multi-Attribute Ranking Tool (SMART), Visual PROMETHEE, EVIDEM and the Prioritisation Framework, were identified. These software tools differed in terms of the operating systems (including web interface), MCDA technique(s) available for use, visualisation features, and the capability to perform Value for Money (VfM) and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MCDA software in prioritisation processes has a number of advantages such as inclusion of several types of stakeholders and the ability to analyse a greater number of alternatives and criteria and perform real-time sensitivity analyses. Proprietary software (i.e. software with licensing fees) seemed to have more features than freely available software. However, this field is still developing, with only a few studies where MCDA software was used to support health priority setting and opportunity costs not explicitly captured in many software tools.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.

Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.

Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.

Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

A Budget Impact Model to Estimate the Environmental Impact of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux

Introduction

The healthcare sector contributes 5–8% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Global and regional organizations and governments have started to design and implement measures to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the healthcare sector, e.g. by green public procurement policies and inclusion of ecological considerations in the decision-making process for purchasing and funding of healthcare technologies. The objective of this study was to perform budget impact analysis of adopting RESPIMAT re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux that considered both the traditional healthcare costs as well as the environmental impact.

Methods

Inhaler costs and environmental impact over 5 years in the Nordics and Benelux in a scenario with RESPIMAT re-usable compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable were estimated using an budget impact model. RESPIMAT re-usable enables patients to re-use the inhaler device and its availability therefore reduces the number of inhalers and associated wastage. The carbon emissions were derived for each treatment pattern considering the whole life cycle (cradle-to-grave) of the inhaler product. The cost of carbon emissions was estimated using a societal cost per ton of carbon emission.

Results

Progressively introducing RESPIMAT re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux was estimated to decrease the number of inhalers used by 2023 by 7,466,621 compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable, which would result in a reduction of the environmental burden of inhaler use of 4717 tCO₂e and a decrease in societal cost of €205,888.

Conclusions

Adopting RESPIMAT re-usable would lead to a substantial reduction in CO₂ emissions, leading to savings from a societal perspective.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01114-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward

OBJECTIVE

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context.

METHODS

The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds.

RESULTS

We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has emerged as a methodology for Health Technology Assessment (HTA). However, limited empirical evidence is available on its use by decision-makers; where available, it only comes from single-setting exercises, while cross-country comparative studies are unavailable. This study applies the Advance Value Framework (AVF), an MCDA methodology for HTA based on multi-attribute value theory, through a series of case studies with decision-makers in four countries, to explore its feasibility and compare decision-makers' value preferences and results. The AVF was applied in the evaluation of three drugs for metastatic, castrate resistant, prostate cancer (abiraterone, cabazitaxel and enzalutamide) in the post-chemotherapy indication. Decision conferences were organised in four European countries in collaboration with their HTA or health insurance organisations by involving relevant assessors and experts: Sweden (TLV), Andalusia/Spain (AETSA), Poland (AOTMiT) and Belgium (INAMI-RIZIV). Participants' value preferences, including performance scoring and criteria weighting, were elicited through a facilitated decision-analysis modelling approach using the MACBETH technique. Between 6 and 11 criteria were included in each jurisdiction's value model, allocated across four criteria domains; Therapeutic Benefit criteria consistently ranked first in relative importance across all countries. Consistent drug rankings were observed in all settings, with enzalutamide generating the highest overall weighted preference value (WPV) score, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. Dividing drugs' overall WPV scores by their costs produced the lowest "cost per unit of value" for enzalutamide, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. These results come in contrast with the actual country HTA recommendations and pricing decisions. Overall, although some differences in value preferences were observed between countries, drug rankings remained the same. The MCDA methodology employed could act as a decision support tool in HTA, due to the transparency in the construction of value preferences in a collaborative manner.

On value frameworks and opportunity costs in health technology assessment

OBJECTIVES

Proceeding from a basic concept underpinning economic evaluation, opportunity cost, this study aims to explain how different approaches to economics diverge quite dramatically in their ideas of what constitutes appropriate valuation, both in principle and practice. Because the concept of opportunity cost does not inherently specify how valuation should be undertaken or specify how appropriate any economic value framework (EVF) might be, the three main economics-based approaches to providing evidence about value for health technology assessment are described.

METHODS

This paper describes how the three main EVFs-namely, the extra-welfarist, welfarist, and classical-are most typically understood, applied, and promoted. It then provides clarification and assessment of related concepts and terminology.

RESULTS

Although EVFs differ, certain underlying characteristics of valuation were identified as fundamental to all approaches to economic evaluation in practice. The study also suggests that some of the rhetoric and terms employed in relation to the extra-welfarist approach are not wholly justified and, further, that only the welfarist approach ensures adherence to welfare-economic principles. Finally, deliberative analysis, especially when connected with a classical economic approach, can serve as a useful supplement to other analytical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

All three approaches to economic evaluation have something to offer assessment processes, but they all display limitations too. Therefore, the author concludes that the language of economic evaluation should be used with sufficient humility to prevent overselling of EVFs, especially with regard to the qualities of evidence they provide for priority setting processes.

Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) concepts, models and tools have been used increasingly in health technology assessment (HTA), with several studies pointing out practical and theoretical issues related to its use. This study provides a critical review of published studies on MCDA in the context of HTA by assessing their methodological quality and summarising methodological challenges.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies discussing, developing or reviewing the use of MCDA in HTA using aggregation approaches. Studies were classified according to publication time and type, country of study, technology type and study type. The PROACTIVE-S approach was constructed and used to analyse methodological quality. Challenges and limitations reported in eligible studies were collected and summarised; this was followed by a critical discussion on research requirements to address the identified challenges.

RESULTS

129 journal articles were eligible for review, 56% of which were published in 2015-2017; 42% focused on pharmaceuticals; 36, 26 and 18% reported model applications, issues regarding MCDA implementation analyses, and proposing frameworks, respectively. Poor compliance with good methodological practice (< 25% complying studies) was found regarding behavioural analyses, discussion of model assumptions and uncertainties, modelling of value functions, and dealing with judgment inconsistencies. The five most reported challenges related to evidence and data synthesis; value system differences and participant selection issues; participant difficulties; methodological complexity and resource balance; and criteria and attributes modelling. A critical discussion on ways to address these challenges ensues.

DISCUSSION

Results highlight the need for advancement in robust methodologies, procedures and tools to improve methodological quality of MCDA in HTA studies. Research pathways include developing new model features, good practice guidelines, technologies to enable participation and behavioural research.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

New model for prioritised adoption and use of hospital medicine in Denmark since 2017: Challenges and perspectives

Technological innovation creates new treatment opportunities, while also putting healthcare budgets under strain. To deal with the rising costs of hospital medicines, the regional governments in Denmark have developed a new model for prioritising the adoption and use of hospital medicine. Marking a shift from previous policies, the new model formalises the evaluation of clinical benefit, adds an assessment of treatment costs and ensures a relatively high degree of direct stakeholder involvement. In international comparison, the new model is ambitious in terms of stakeholder involvement and adherence with principles advocated to ensure procedural justice and fair decision-making processes. However, these procedural innovations have also created new challenges. Notably, the newly formed assessment body, the Danish Medicines Council, is faced with a very high caseload and limited options to prioritise the use of its analytical resources.

Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare

BACKGROUND

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are beginning to reach European markets, and questions are being asked about their value for patients and how healthcare systems should pay for them.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and discuss potential challenges of ATMPs in view of current health technology assessment (HTA) methodology-specifically economic evaluation methods-in Europe as it relates to ATMPs, and to suggest potential solutions to these challenges.

METHODS

An Expert Panel reviewed current HTA principles and practices in relation to the specific characteristics of ATMPs.

RESULTS

Three key topics were identified and prioritised for discussion-uncertainty, discounting, and health outcomes and value. The panel discussed that evidence challenges linked to increased uncertainty may be mitigated by collection of follow-on data, use of value of information analysis, and/or outcomes-based contracts. For discount rates, an international, multi-disciplinary forum should be established to consider the economic, social and ethical implications of the choice of rate. Finally, consideration of the feasibility of assessing the value of ATMPs beyond health gain may also be key for decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

ATMPs face a challenge in demonstrating their value within current HTA frameworks. Consideration of current HTA principles and practices with regards to the specific characteristics of ATMPs and continued dialogue will be key to ensuring appropriate market access.

CLASSIFICATION CODE

I.

Selecting topic areas for developing quality standards in a resource-limited setting

Variation in practices of and access to health promotion and disease prevention (P&P) across geographical areas have been studied in Thailand as well as other healthcare settings. The implementation of quality standards (QS)—a concise set of evidence-informed quality statements designed to drive and measure priority quality improvements—can be an option to solve the problem. This paper aims to provide an overview of the priority setting process of topic areas for developing QS and describes the criteria used. Topic selection consisted of an iterative process involving several steps and relevant stakeholders. Review of existing documents on the principles and criteria used for prioritising health technology assessment topics were performed. Problems with healthcare services were reviewed, and stakeholder consultation meetings were conducted to discuss current problems and comment on the proposed prioritisation criteria. Topics were then prioritised based on both empirical evidence derived from literature review and stakeholders’ experiences through a deliberative process. Preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and postpartum haemorrhage were selected. The three health problems had significant disease burden; were prevalent among pregnant women in Thailand; led to high mortality and morbidity in mothers and children and caused variation in the practices and service uptake at health facilities. Having agreed-on criteria is one of the important elements of the priority setting process. The criteria should be discussed and refined with various stakeholders. Moreover, key stakeholders, especially the implementers of QS initiative, should be engaged in a constructive way and should be encouraged to actively participate and contribute significantly in the process.