Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control

Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes

OBJECTIVE

Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA).

RESULTS

On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Assessing the interactions of people and policy-makers in social participation for health: an inventory of participatory governance measures from a rapid systematic literature review

Social participation, also termed stakeholder voice, is an important component of health system governance. Increased interactions between the community and policy makers could facilitate a more responsive health system that targets the needs of the community better. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a handbook on social participation that identified five key themes for ministries of health to consider when engaging the input of the community. In this rapid systematic literature review, we aimed to identify quantitative and qualitative measures that have been used to assess aspects of social participation involving people and policy makers. We identified 172 measures from 48 studies from countries in all six WHO regions. These measures were categorized by all five themes from the handbook on social participation and these measures are linked to 27 concepts. This rapid review found that the focus of measures is largely on the existence of participation-be it by the general population or specific vulnerable groups-rather than on the quality of their participation. The measures in this inventory may be useful for ministries of health and other key stakeholders to use when developing methods to assess and encourage social participation in their context.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology

(1) Background: Precision oncology has the potential to improve patient health and wellbeing through targeted prevention and treatment. Owing to uncertain clinical and economic outcomes, reimbursement has been limited. The objective of this pan-Canadian qualitative study was to investigate barriers to precision oncology implementation from the perspectives of health system stakeholders. (2) Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with health technology decision makers (n = 14) and clinicians (n = 18) experienced with precision oncology. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Recruitment continued until two qualitative analysts reached agreement that thematic saturation was reached. (3) Results: While cautiously optimistic about the potential for enhanced therapeutic alignment, participants identified multiple decisional challenges under conditions of evidentiary uncertainty. Decision makers voiced concern over resource requirements alongside small benefitting patient populations and limited evidence supporting patient and health system impacts. Clinicians were comparatively tolerant of evidentiary uncertainty guiding clinical decision-making practices. Clinicians applied a broader definition of patient benefit, focusing on the ability to assist patients making informed clinical decisions. (4) Conclusions: Sustainable precision oncology must balance demand with evidence demonstrating benefit. We show that clinicians and decision makers vary in their tolerance for evolving knowledge, suggesting a need to establish evidentiary standards supporting precision oncology reimbursement decisions.

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.

Who is in and who is out? A qualitative analysis of stakeholder participation in priority setting for health in three districts in Uganda

Stakeholder participation is relevant in strengthening priority setting processes for health worldwide, since it allows for inclusion of alternative perspectives and values that can enhance the fairness, legitimacy and acceptability of decisions. Low-income countries operating within decentralized systems recognize the role played by sub-national administrative levels (such as districts) in healthcare priority setting. In Uganda, decentralization is a vehicle for facilitating stakeholder participation. Our objective was to examine district-level decision-makers' perspectives on the participation of different stakeholders, including challenges related to their participation. We further sought to understand the leverages that allow these stakeholders to influence priority setting processes. We used an interpretive description methodology involving qualitative interviews. A total of 27 district-level decision-makers from three districts in Uganda were interviewed. Respondents identified the following stakeholder groups: politicians, technical experts, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGO)/civil society organizations (CSO), cultural and traditional leaders, and the public. Politicians, technical experts and donors are the principal contributors to district-level priority setting and the public is largely excluded. The main leverages for politicians were control over the district budget and support of their electorate. Expertise was a cross-cutting leverage for technical experts, donors and NGO/CSOs, while financial and technical resources were leverages for donors and NGO/CSOs. Cultural and traditional leaders' leverages were cultural knowledge and influence over their followers. The public's leverage was indirect and exerted through electoral power. Respondents made no mention of participation for vulnerable groups. The public, particularly vulnerable groups, are left out of the priority setting process for health at the district. Conflicting priorities, interests and values are the main challenges facing stakeholders engaged in district-level priority setting. Our findings have important implications for understanding how different stakeholder groups shape the prioritization process and whether representation can be an effective mechanism for participation in health-system priority setting.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach

BACKGROUND

Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment.

METHODS

The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores.

RESULTS

The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems

Expenditure on cancer therapies is rising rapidly in many countries, particularly for cancer drugs. In recent years, this has stimulated a global debate among the public, patients, clinicians, decision-makers, and the pharmaceutical industry on value, affordability, and sustainability propositions relating to cancer therapies. In this article, we discuss some recent developments in evidence-based approaches to priority setting and resource allocation in Canadian cancer systems. These developments include new methods for deliberative public engagement, generating and using real-world evidence, multi-criteria decision analysis, and handling uncertainty with evidence for gene therapies.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

Health Technology Assessment as Part of a Broader Process for Priority Setting and Resource Allocation

Over the last two decades, economic evaluation of health technologies has developed enormously, affirming its importance within the pursuit of efficiency in the management of health care systems. One concern that has been raised with health technology assessment (HTA) has been its operationalization within the realm of decision making. Here, we suggest a mechanism by which HTA can be understood as an input into a broader framework for priority setting and resource allocation. When HTA is seen in this light, topics that at times have had some lack of clarity, such as public engagement and disinvestment, simply become steps in the overall decision-making process.

Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs

Background

Decisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities.

Methods

In September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals’ willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes.

Results

Participants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or “grandfathering” approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted.

Conclusions

The results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.

Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy

BACKGROUND

Health system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system.

METHODS

An approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live.

CONCLUSIONS

The next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.

People with lived experience (PWLE) of depression: describing and reflecting on an explicit patient engagement process within depression research priority setting in Alberta, Canada

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project aimed to meaningfully involve patients, families and clinicians in determining a research agenda aligned to the needs of Albertans who have experienced depression. The project was modeled after a process developed in the UK by the James Lind Alliance and adapted to fit the Alberta, Canada context. This study describes the processes used to ensure the voices of people with lived experience of depression were integrated throughout the project stages. The year long project culminated with a facilitated session to identify the top essential areas of depression research focus. People with lived experience were engaged as part of the project's Steering Committee, as survey participants and as workshop participants. It is hoped this process will guide future priority setting opportunities and advance depression research in Alberta.

ABSTRACT

Background The Depression Research Priority Setting (DRPS) project has the clear aim of describing the patient engagement process used to identify depression research priorities and to reflect on the successes of this engagement approach, positive impacts and opportunities for improvement. To help support patient-oriented depression research priority setting in Alberta, the Patient Engagement (PE) Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit designed, along with the support of their partners in addictions and mental health, an explit process to engage patients in the design and execution of the DRPS. Methods The UK's James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) method was adapted into a six step process to ensure voices of "people with lived experience" (PWLE) with depression were included throughout the project stages. This study uses an explicit and parallel patient engagement process throughout each estage of the PSP designed by the PE Platform. Patient engagement was divided into a five step process: i) Awareness and relationship building; ii) Co-designing and co-developing a shared decision making process; iii) Collaborative communication; iv) Collective sensemaking; and v) Acknowledgement, celebration and recognition. A formative evaluation of the six PE processes was undertaken to explore the success of the parallel patient engagement process. Results This project was successful in engaging people with lived depression experience as partners in research priority setting, incorporating their voices into the discussions and decisions that led to the top 25 depression research questions. Conclusions The DRPS project has positively contributed to depression research in Canada by identifying the priorities of Albertans who have experienced depression for depression research. Dissemination activities to promote further knowledge exchange of prioritized research questions, with emphasis on the importance of process in engaging the voices of PWLE of depression are planned.

The top research questions asked by people with lived depression experience in Alberta: a survey

BACKGROUND

To support patient-oriented setting of priorities for depression research in Alberta, the Patient Engagement Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research's Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials Unit and Alberta Health Services' Addiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network, along with partners in addictions and mental health, designed the Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project. The aim of the project was to survey patients, caregivers and clinicians/researchers in Alberta about what they considered to be the most important unanswered questions about depression.

METHODS

The project adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method into a 6-step process to gather and prioritize questions about depression posed by people with lived depression experience, which included patients, caregivers, clinicians and health care practitioners.

RESULTS

Implementation of the project, from initial data collection to final priority setting, took 10 months (August 2016 to June 2017). A total of 445 Albertans with lived experience of depression participated, ultimately identifying 11 priority depression research questions spanning the health continuum, life stages, and treatment and prevention opportunities.

INTERPRETATION

This project is a fundamental step that has the potential to positively influence depression research. Including the voices of Albertans with lived experience will create advantages for depression research for Albertans, researchers and research funders, and for patient engagement in the research enterprise overall.

Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens.

METHODS

In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.

The No-Destination Ship of Priority-Setting in Healthcare: A Call for More Democracy

In dealing with scarcity of resources within healthcare systems, decision-makers inevitably have to make choices about which services to fund. Setting priorities represents a challenging task that requires systematic, explicit and transparent methodologies with focus on economic efficiency. In addition, the engagement of the general public in the process of decision-making has been regarded as one of the most important aspects of the management of publicly-funded health systems in liberal democracies. In the current essay, we aim to discuss the problematics of public engagement in the process of resource allocation and priority-setting within the context of publiclyfunded health systems. Our central argument is that although there may be a conflict between democratic mechanisms of citizen participation and economic efficiency, in the extra-welfarist sense, expected for/from the system, the solution for this tension does not seem to rely on more or novel authoritative technocratic approaches, but rather on the deepening and betterment of democratic participation.

A time-and-motion approach to micro-costing of high-throughput genomic assays

BACKGROUND

Genomic technologies are increasingly used to guide clinical decision-making in cancer control. Economic evidence about the cost-effectiveness of genomic technologies is limited, in part because of a lack of published comprehensive cost estimates. In the present micro-costing study, we used a time-and-motion approach to derive cost estimates for 3 genomic assays and processes-digital gene expression profiling (gep), fluorescence in situ hybridization (fish), and targeted capture sequencing, including bioinformatics analysis-in the context of lymphoma patient management.

METHODS

The setting for the study was the Department of Lymphoid Cancer Research laboratory at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mean per-case hands-on time and resource measurements were determined from a series of direct observations of each assay. Per-case cost estimates were calculated using a bottom-up costing approach, with labour, capital and equipment, supplies and reagents, and overhead costs included.

RESULTS

The most labour-intensive assay was found to be fish at 258.2 minutes per case, followed by targeted capture sequencing (124.1 minutes per case) and digital gep (14.9 minutes per case). Based on a historical case throughput of 180 cases annually, the mean per-case cost (2014 Canadian dollars) was estimated to be $1,029.16 for targeted capture sequencing and bioinformatics analysis, $596.60 for fish, and $898.35 for digital gep with an 807-gene code set.

CONCLUSIONS

With the growing emphasis on personalized approaches to cancer management, the need for economic evaluations of high-throughput genomic assays is increasing. Through economic modelling and budget-impact analyses, the cost estimates presented here can be used to inform priority-setting decisions about the implementation of such assays in clinical practice.

The Role of Decision Models in Health Care Policy: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) underwent a National Coverage Determination on computed tomography colonography (CTC) to screen for colorectal cancer. The Cancer Intervention & Surveillance Network developed decision models to inform this decision. The purpose of our study was to investigate the role of models in this decision.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive case study. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with members of the CMS coverage and analysis group (CAG) and Medicare Coverage and Analysis Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) panelists. Informed by previously published literature, we developed a coding scheme to analyze interview transcripts, MEDCAC meeting transcripts, and the final CMS decision memo.

RESULTS

Four members of the CAG and 8 MEDCAC panelists were interviewed. The total number of codes across all study documents was 772. We found evidence that decision makers believed in the adequacy of models to inform decision making. In interview transcripts, the code Models Are Adequate to Inform was more frequent than the code Models Are Inadequate to Inform (47 times v. 5). Discussion of model conceptualization dominated the MEDCAC meeting (Model Conceptualization assigned 113 times) and was frequently discussed during interviews (Model Conceptualization assigned 84 times). We also found evidence that the models helped to focus the policy discussion. Across study documents, the codes Focus on Cost, Focus on Clinical-Health Impact, and Focus on Inadequacy of Evidence Base were assigned 99, 98, and 97 times, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision makers involved in the CTC decision believed in the adequacy of models to inform coverage decisions. The model played a role in focusing the CTC coverage policy discussion.