Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants

If you were a policymaker, which treatment would you disinvest? A participatory value evaluation on public preferences for active disinvestment of health care interventions in the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment.

METHODS

A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices.

RESULTS

Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings.

CONCLUSION

The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment.

To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens.

METHOD

In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics.

RESULTS

The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants' age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem.

CONCLUSION

Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions

OBJECTIVES

To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views.

METHODS

A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n = 43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants.

RESULTS

Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent.

CONCLUSION

Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017

BACKGROUND

Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value-clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility-but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach.

METHODS

Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011-2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations.

RESULTS

Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency.

Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) is the government body responsible for deciding whether outpatient drugs are to be included in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This paper analyzes the impact of cost effectiveness and severity of disease on reimbursement decisions for new pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

Data has been extracted from all decisions made by the TLV between 2005 and 2011. Cost effectiveness is measured as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas disease severity is a binary variable (severe-not severe). In total, the dataset consists of 102 decisions, with 86 approved and 16 declined reimbursements.

RESULTS

The lowest cost per QALY of declined reimbursements is Swedish kronor (SEK) 700,000 (€ 79,100), while the highest cost per QALY of approved reimbursements is SEK1,220,000 (€ 135,600). At a cost per QALY of SEK702,000 Swedish kronor (non-severe diseases) and SEK988,000 (severe diseases), the likelihood of approval is estimated to be 50/50 (€ 79,400 and € 111,700).

CONCLUSIONS

The TLV places substantial weight on both the cost effectiveness and the severity of disease in reimbursement decisions, and the implied willingness to pay for a QALY is higher than the often cited 'rule of thumb' in Swedish policy debates.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Background

NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.

Objectives

We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.

Results

There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.

Conclusions

Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Undocumented injustice? Medical repatriation and the ends of health care

The authors review the history and motivations behind medical repatriation, the transfer of undocumented patients in need of subacute care to their country of origin. They argue that involuntary medical repatriation violates the ethical duties of health care providers.

Exploring public attitudes towards approaches to discussing costs in the clinical encounter

BACKGROUND

Patients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians.

DESIGN

Focus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Attitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs.

KEY RESULTS

Participants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants (OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs (OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter.

Rationing in the intensive care unit: to disclose or disguise?

INTRODUCTION

Growing pressures to ration intensive care unit beds and services pose novel challenges to clinicians. Whereas the question of how to allocate scarce intensive care unit resources has received much attention, the question of whether to disclose these decisions to patients and surrogates has not been explored.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

We explore how considerations of professionalism, dual agency, patients' and surrogates' preferences, beneficence, and healthcare efficiency and efficacy influence the propriety of disclosing rationing decisions in the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

There are compelling conceptual reasons to support a policy of routine disclosure. Systematic disclosure of prevailing intensive care unit norms for making allocation decisions, and of at least the most consequential specific decisions, can promote transparent, professional, and effective healthcare delivery. However, many empiric questions about how best to structure and implement disclosure processes remain to be answered. Specifically, research is needed to determine how best to operationalize disclosure processes so as to maximize prospective benefits to patients and surrogates and minimize burdens on clinicians and intensive care units.

To accept, or not to accept, that is the question: citizen reactions to rationing

BACKGROUND

The publicly financed health service in Sweden has come under increasing pressure, forcing policy makers to consider restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe different perceptions of rationing, in particular, what citizens themselves believe influences their acceptance of having to stand aside for others in a public health service.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews, analysed by phenomenography, describing perceptions by different categories.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Purposeful sample of 14 Swedish citizens, based on demographic criteria and attitudes towards allocation in health care.

RESULTS

Participants expressed high awareness of limitations in public resources and the necessity of rationing. Acceptance of rationing could increase or decrease, depending on one's (i) awareness that healthcare resources are limited, (ii) endorsement of universal health care, (iii) knowledge and acceptance of the principles guiding rationing and (iv) knowledge about alternatives to public health services.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that decision makers should be more explicit in describing the dilemma of resource limitations in a publicly funded healthcare system. Openness enables citizens to gain the insight to make informed decisions, i.e. to use public services or to 'opt out' of the public sector solution if they consider rationing decisions unacceptable.

The Desirability of Being Open About Health Care Rationing Decisions: Findings from a Qualitative Study of Patients and Clinical Professionals

Objective

To understand the views of patients and professionals about how feasible and appropriate it is to make health care rationing decisions openly at the consultation level.

Methods

Thirty-one patients and 21 health care professionals were asked about their experiences of implicit and explicit rationing during in-depth interviews structured around two clinical case studies (morbid obesity and breast cancer). Sampling was undertaken theoretically and data analysis was carried out using constant comparison.

Results

Patients had a broad awareness of health care rationing and nearly all said they wanted to know how financial factors affected the provision of their health care. However, the experience of explicit rationing could be distressing and one patient regretted having been told. Despite a firm commitment to the ideal of being open with patients about rationing, in practice, clinical professionals encountered a number of ethical and practical barriers to making such decisions explicitly, meaning that implicit methods were frequently adopted.

Conclusions

The results suggest that moves in the UK and elsewhere to undertake rationing more explicitly are in line with the preferences of the majority of patients and professionals. However, the potential for distress caused through rationing openly means that further research is needed to understand whether explicitness is always the best approach at the consultation level, and professionals need further training and support to deal with the stressful nature of making rationing decisions openly.

Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly important in public health decision making, including in low- and middle-income countries. The decision makers' valuation of a unit of health gain, or ceiling ratio (lambda), is important in CEA as the relative value against which acceptability is defined, although values are usually chosen arbitrarily in practice. Reference case estimates for lambda are useful to promote consistency, facilitate new developments in decision analysis, compare estimates against benefit-cost ratios from other economic sectors, and explicitly inform decisions about equity in global health budgets. The aim of this article is to discuss values for lambda used in practice, including derivation based on affordability expectations (such as $US150 per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY]), some multiple of gross national income or gross domestic product, and preference-elicitation methods, and explore the implications associated with each approach. The background to the debate is introduced, the theoretical bases of current values are reviewed, and examples are given of their application in practice. Advantages and disadvantages of each method for defining lambda are outlined, followed by an exploration of methodological and policy implications.

Bedside rationing by general practitioners: a postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system

BACKGROUND

It is ethically controversial whether medical doctors are morally permitted to ration the care of their patients at the bedside. To explore whether general practitioners in fact do ration in this manner we conducted a study within primary care in the Danish public healthcare system. The purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) would be willing to factor in cost-quality trade-offs when prescribing medicine, and to discover whether, and if so to what extent, they believe that patients should be informed about this.

METHODS

Postal survey of 600 randomly selected Danish GPs, of which 330 responded to the questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) was used to produce general descriptive statistics. Significance was calculated with the McNemar and the chi-square test. The main outcome measures of the study were twofold: an assessment of the proportion of GPs who, in a mainly hypothetical setting, would consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given their economic impact on the healthcare system; and a measure of the extent to which they would disclose this information to patients.

RESULTS

In the hypothetical setting 95% of GPs considered cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. In all 90% stated that this consideration had been relevant in clinical decision-making within the last month. In the hypothetical setting 55% would inform their patients that they considered a cost-quality trade-off relevant to their clinical decisions given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. The most common reason (68%) given for not wanting to inform patients about this matter was the belief that the information would not prove useful to patients. In the hypothetical setting cost-quality trade-offs were considered relevant significantly more often in connection with concerns about costs to the patient (86%) than they were in connection with concerns about costs to the healthcare system (55%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although readiness to consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to clinical decisions is prevalent among GPs in Denmark, only half of GPs would disclose to patients that they consider this relevant to their clinical decision-making. The results of this study raise two important ethical problems. First, under Danish law physicians are required to inform patients about all equal treatments. The fact that only a few GPs would inform their patients about all of the relevant treatments therefore seems to contravene Danish law. Second, it is ethically controversial that physicians act as economic gatekeepers.

Preferences for disclosure: the case of bedside rationing

While rationing is present in many health care systems, little empirical research has been undertaken to investigate the public's preferences and information needs towards the rationing of their care. This paper reports the results of an interactive survey administered via an internet survey panel to investigate preferences for the provision of information about explicit rationing decisions. We presented a series of vignettes to respondents, describing hypothetical patients and explicit rationing decisions. In two different survey versions, patients were either characterized as matching or mismatching respondents' age and gender. We observed strong preferences for the disclosure of rationing information to patients. Seventy one percent of responders expressed a general attitude in favor of explicitly informing patients about the rationing of their care. In the presented scenarios, the fraction supporting disclosure to patients ranged from 63% to 89%. The clinical situation described in the vignettes, a positive, general attitude towards the disclosure of rationing decisions, age, and gender of respondents were main predictors for participants' votes. Preferences were relatively unaffected and insensitive to the matching of hypothetical patients and respondents' characteristics. This study suggests that if doctors are to play an active role in health care rationing, patients expect them to honestly discuss the decisions made, the economics behind these and finally, to deal with those patients that do not accept the final decision.

Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of health-care systems, both public and private, such as managed-care organizations, are adopting results from cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis as one of the measures to inform decisions on allocation of health-care resources. It is expected that thresholds for CE ratios may be established for the acceptance of reimbursement or formulary listing.

OBJECTIVE

This paper provides an overview of the development of and debate on CE thresholds, reviews threshold figures (i.e., cost per unit of health gain) currently proposed for or applied to resource-allocation decisions, and explores how thresholds may emerge.

DISCUSSION

At the time of this review, there is no evidence from the literature that any health-care system has yet implemented explicit CE ratio thresholds. The fact that some government agencies have utilized results from CE analysis in pricing/reimbursement decisions allows for retrospective analysis of the consistency of these decisions. As CE analysis becomes more widely utilized in assisting health-care decision-making, this may cause decision-makers to become increasingly consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

When CE analysis is conducted, well-established methodology should be used and transparency should be ensured. CE thresholds are expected to emerge in many countries, driven by the need for transparent and consistent decision-making. Future thresholds will likely be higher in most high-income countries than currently cited rules of thumb.

Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care

Greater patient involvement has become a key goal of health care provision. This study explored the way in which general practitioners (GPs) in the UK manage the dual responsibilities of treating individual patients and making the most equitable use of National Health Service (NHS) resources in the context of the policy of greater patient involvement in decision-making. We undertook a qualitative study incorporating a series of interviews and focus groups with a sample of 24 GPs. We analysed GP accounts of decision-making by relating these to substantive ethical principles and the key procedural principle of explicitness in decision-making. GPs saw patient involvement in positive terms but for some GPs involvement served an instrumental purpose, for instance improving patient 'compliance'. GPs identified strongly with the role of patient advocate but experienced role tensions particularly with respect to wider responsibilities for budgets, populations, and society in general. GPs had an implicit understanding of the key ethical principle of explicitness and of other substantive ethical principles but there was incongruence between these and their interpretation in practice. Limited availability of GP time played an important role in this theory/practice gap. GPs engaged in implicit categorisation of patients, legitimating this process by reference to the diversity and complexity of general practice. If patient involvement in health care decision-making is to be increased, then questions of scarcity of resources, including time, will need to be taken into account. If strategies for greater patient involvement are to be pursued then this will have significant implications for funding primary care, particularly in terms of addressing the demands made on consultation time. Good ethics and good professional practice cost money and must be budgeted for. More explicit decision-making in primary care will need to be accompanied by greater explicitness at the national level about roles and responsibilities. Increased patient involvement has consequences for GP training and ways of addressing rationing dilemmas will need to be an important part of this training. Further research is needed to understand micro-decision-making, in particular the spaces in which processes of implicit categorisation lead to distorted communication between doctor and patient.

Drug reimbursement in Finland-a case of explicit prioritizing in special categories

Increased drug expenses have created challenges for drug reimbursement systems in many industrialised countries, including Finland. Prioritization of drugs could be one solution to this problem. This paper examines stakeholders' perspectives on the prioritization decisions made in the Finnish drug reimbursement system, particularly concerning drugs in the higher reimbursement categories. The analysis was based on 18 interviews with key stakeholders. The results revealed that authorities directly influencing the decisions tried to keep them as technical and non-political as possible. However, doing so was not easy, and there appeared to be hidden non-technical rationales behind many decisions. Stakeholders outside public administration had few opportunities to openly participate in decision-making because of the lack of transparency of the process. Despite this, they tried to influence decisions concerning their interests by using several means, such as lobbying the media, Parliament or other stakeholders. Transparent decision-making and better methods of open discussion on competing interests could promote democracy in the prioritization of drugs and perhaps reduce the harmful effects of indirect and unequal participation by different stakeholders.