1
|
Njoroge MW, Walton M, Hodgson R. Understanding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Severity Premium: Exploring Its Implementation and the Implications for Decision Making and Patient Access. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2024; 27:730-736. [PMID: 38447743 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.02.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2023] [Revised: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/08/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) new severity modifier, which has replaced the end-of-life (EoL) premium, on future NICE recommendations, considering past decision-making patterns. METHODS NICE technology appraisals (TAs) published between January 2020 and December 2022 were reviewed. Summary statistics were generated to assess how the new severity modifier might affect hypothetical decision making in historical TAs. RESULTS A total of 138 data points were identified from 132 TAs. Although the EoL premium was applied in 46 appraisals (33%), 57 (39%) qualify for a severity-based quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) multiplier. Only 19 appraisals (14.6%) not receiving an EoL premium met the severity criteria, the majority (17) qualifying for a 1.2× multiplier. In appraisals predicted to meet the severity criteria, 45 (79%) were in oncology, making them 4.04 times (95% CI 1.91-9.02) more likely to qualify for a severity modifier than nononcology indications. Among historically EoL indications, 42 (91%) were predicted to meet the severity criteria, making them 14.8 times (95% CI 6.37-37.6) more likely to qualify for a severity modifier. CONCLUSIONS The new severity modifier will predominantly benefit oncology indications, continuing their previous explicit prioritization under the EoL decision modifier. However, the new severity modifier is harder to achieve and less generous; only a fraction of appraisals qualify for the highest effective £51 000 per QALY threshold. The vast majority of indications previously approved at £50 000 per QALY would now need to meet a cost-effectiveness threshold of <£36 000. This may necessitate greater pricing flexibility from manufacturers and increase the likelihood of negative recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin W Njoroge
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Matthew Walton
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England, UK
| | - Robert Hodgson
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yin Y, Peng Q, Ma L, Dong Y, Sun Y, Xu S, Ding N, Liu X, Zhao M, Tang Y, Mei Z, Shao H, Yan D, Tang W. QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment. Qual Life Res 2024; 33:753-765. [PMID: 38079024 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03562-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a dominant measurement of health gain in economic evaluations for pricing drugs. However, end-of-life (EoL) patients' preference for QALY gains in life expectancy (LE) and quality of life (QoL) during different disease stages remains unknown and is seldom involved in decision-making. This study aims to measure preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) towards different types of QALY gain among EoL cancer patients. METHODS We attributed QALY gain to four types, gain in LE and QoL, respectively, and during both progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival (PPS). A discrete choice experiment including five attributes (the four QALY attributes and one cost attribute) with three levels each was developed and conducted with 85 Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in 2022. All levels were set with QALY gain/cost synthesised from research on anti-lung cancer drugs recently listed by Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration. Each respondent answered six choice tasks in a face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using mixed logit models. RESULTS Patients valued LE-related QALY gain in PFS most, with a relative importance of 81.8% and a WTP of $43,160 [95% CI 26,751 ~ 59,569] per QALY gain. Respondents consistently preferred LE-related to QoL-related QALY gain regardless of disease stage. Patients with higher income or lower education levels tended to pay more for QoL-related QALY gain. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest a prioritised resource allocation to EoL-prolonging health technologies. Given the small sample size and large individual heterogeneity, a full-scale study is needed to provide more robust results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yue Yin
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Qian Peng
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Longhao Ma
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Yi Dong
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Yinan Sun
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Silu Xu
- Department of Pharmacy, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210009, China
| | - Nianyang Ding
- Department of Pharmacy, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210009, China
| | - Xiaolin Liu
- Department of Pharmacy, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210009, China
| | - Mingye Zhao
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Yaqian Tang
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Zhiqing Mei
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Hanqiao Shao
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China
| | - Dan Yan
- Department of Pharmacy, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210009, China.
- School of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China.
| | - Wenxi Tang
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China.
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China.
- Department of Public Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bae EY, Lim MK, Lee B, Bae G, Hong J. Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea. Health Policy 2023; 138:104932. [PMID: 37924559 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Revised: 09/13/2023] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to explore the public view on priority-setting criteria for healthcare resource allocation. Specifically, it investigates how the value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) varies depending on patient characteristics. METHODS A discrete choice experiment was conducted using an online sample of the general South Korean population. Respondents were presented with two competing treatment scenarios. The attributes of the scenarios were age at disease onset, life expectancy without treatment, life-years gain with treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) without treatment, and HRQoL gains with treatment. Two hundred choice sets were generated and randomly allocated into 20 blocks. A conditional logit model was used to estimate the factors affecting the respondents' choices. RESULTS A total of 3,482 respondents completed the survey. The larger the QALY gain, the more likely it was that the scenario would be chosen but with a diminishing marginal value. Respondents prioritized 40-year-old patients over 5-year-olds and 5-year-olds over 70-year-olds and prioritized baseline HRQoL of 40% and 60% over 20%. Patients at the end of life were not preferred to those with a longer life expectancy. CONCLUSION Overall, respondents preferred health-maximizing options without explicit consideration for end-of-life patients or those with poor health. In addition, they revealed a kinked preference for patient age, prioritizing middle-aged patients over children and older people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun-Young Bae
- College of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea; Institute of Pharmacy, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea.
| | - Min Kyoung Lim
- Health Insurance Research Institute, National Health Insurance Service, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Boram Lee
- Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Green Bae
- College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jihyung Hong
- Department of Healthcare Management, College of Social Science, Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sevilla JP. The value of vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol 2022; 78:102243. [PMID: 36156412 DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2022.102243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2022] [Revised: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Optimizing vaccine spending depends on recognizing the full value of vaccination (VoV). Existing taxonomies of such value are not comprehensive because they are not guided by general theories. I rely on two such theories: subjective-value theory claims that what has value is determined by what people actually or ideally want in life. A welfarist theory of government states that a fundamental objective of government is to promote social value (or social welfare). These jointly imply that any aspect of life that individuals actually or ideally value and that could be negatively affected by vaccine-preventable diseases (and therefore positively affected by preventive vaccines) is an element of VoV. I build a more comprehensive-value taxonomy than currently exists based on this implication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P Sevilla
- Data for Decisions, LLC, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Quinn KL, Krahn M, Stukel TA, Grossman Y, Goldman R, Cram P, Detsky AS, Bell CM. No Time to Waste: An Appraisal of Value at the End of Life. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:S1098-3015(22)01966-0. [PMID: 35690518 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2021] [Revised: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The use of economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions may be limited by an incomplete appreciation of how patients and society perceive value at end of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate how patients, caregivers, and society value gains in quantity of life and quality of life (QOL) at the end of life. The validity of the assumptions underlying the use of the quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as a measure of preferences at end of life was also examined. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from inception to February 22, 2021. Original research studies reporting empirical data on healthcare priority setting at end of life were included. There was no restriction on the use of either quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all included studies. The primary outcomes were the value of gains in quantity of life and the value of gains in QOL at end of life. RESULTS A total of 51 studies involving 53 981 participants reported that gains in QOL were generally preferred over quantity of life at the end of life across stakeholder groups. Several violations of the underlying assumptions of the QALY to measure preferences at the end of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS Most patients, caregivers, and members of the general public prioritize gains in QOL over marginal gains in life prolongation at the end of life. These findings suggest that policy evaluations of end-of-life interventions should favor those that improve QOL. QALYs may be an inadequate measure of preferences for end-of-life care thereby limiting their use in formal economic evaluations of end-of-life interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kieran L Quinn
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Murray Krahn
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Thérèse A Stukel
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Yona Grossman
- Arts and Science Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Russell Goldman
- Interdepartmental Division of Palliative Care, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada; Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Peter Cram
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Allan S Detsky
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Chaim M Bell
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; ICES, Toronto and Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Morrell L, Buchanan J, Rees S, Barker RW, Wordsworth S. What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2021; 39:1443-1454. [PMID: 34409564 PMCID: PMC8599241 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01067-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/13/2021] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Decisions on funding new healthcare technologies assume that all health improvements are valued equally. However, public reaction to health technology assessment (HTA) decisions suggests there are health attributes that matter deeply to them but are not currently accounted for in the assessment process. We aimed to determine the relative importance of attributes of illness that influence the value placed on alleviating that illness. METHOD We conducted a discrete choice experiment survey that presented general public respondents with 15 funding decisions between hypothetical health conditions. The conditions were defined by five attributes that characterise serious illnesses, plus the health gain from treatment. Respondent preferences were modelled using conditional logistic regression and latent class analysis. RESULTS 905 members of the UK public completed the survey in November 2017. Respondents generally preferred to provide treatments for conditions with 'better' characteristics. The exception was treatment availability, where respondents preferred to provide treatments for conditions where there is no current treatment, and were prepared to accept lower overall health gain to do so. A subgroup of respondents preferred to prioritise 'worse' health states. CONCLUSION This study suggests a preference among the UK public for treating an unmet need; however, it does not suggest a preference for prioritising other distressing aspects of health conditions, such as limited life expectancy, or where patients are reliant on care. Our results are not consistent with the features currently prioritised in UK HTA processes, and the preference heterogeneity we identify presents a major challenge for developing broadly acceptable policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Morrell
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sian Rees
- Oxford Academic Health Science Network, Oxford, UK
| | - Richard W Barker
- Oxford-UCL Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Reckers-Droog V, van Exel J, Brouwer W. Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:1182-1192. [PMID: 34372984 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2020] [Revised: 01/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2021] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Decision-making frameworks that draw on economic evaluations increasingly use equity weights to facilitate a more equitable and fair allocation of healthcare resources. These weights can be attached to health gains or reflected in the monetary threshold against which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (new) health technologies are evaluated. Currently applied weights are based on different definitions of disease severity and do not account for age-related preferences in society. However, age has been shown to be an important equity-relevant characteristic. This study examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related quality of life (QOL) gains in relation to the disease severity and age of patients, and the outcome of the disease. METHODS We obtained WTP estimates by applying contingent-valuation tasks in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (n = 2023). We applied random-effects generalized least squares regression models to estimate the effect of patients' disease severity and age, size of QOL gains, disease outcome (full recovery/death 1 year after falling ill), and respondent characteristics on the WTP. RESULTS Respondents' WTP was higher for more severely ill and younger patients and for larger-sized QOL gains, but lower for patients who died. However, the relations were nonlinear and context dependent. Respondents with a lower age, who were male, had a higher household income, and a higher QOL stated a higher WTP for QOL gains. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that-if the aim is to align resource-allocation decisions in healthcare with societal preferences-currently applied equity weights do not suffice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivian Reckers-Droog
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Job van Exel
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Werner Brouwer
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam (EsCHER), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Willingness to pay for quality and length of life gains in end of life patients of different ages. Soc Sci Med 2021; 279:113987. [PMID: 33975052 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Revised: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Health gains are increasingly weighted in economic evaluations of new health technologies to guide resource-allocation decisions in healthcare. In Norway and the Netherlands weights are, for example, based on the disease severity of patients. In England and Wales, a higher weight is attached to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from life-extending end-of-life (EOL) treatments. Societal preferences for QALY gains in EOL patients are increasingly examined. Although the available evidence suggests that gains in health-related quality of life (QOL) may be preferred to gains in life expectancy (LE), little is known about the influence of EOL patients' age on these preferences. In this study, we examine the willingness to pay (WTP) for QOL and LE gains in EOL patients of different ages in a sample (n = 803) of the general public in the Netherlands. We found that WTP was relatively higher for QOL and LE gains in younger EOL patients. We further found indications suggesting that WTP may be relatively higher for QOL gains at the EOL, except for patients aged 20 for whom we observed a higher WTP for LE gains. Our results may inform discussions on attaching differential weights to QOL and LE gains in EOL patients of different ages with the objective to better align resource-allocation decisions with societal preferences.
Collapse
|