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

Unravelling Elements of Value of Healthcare and Assessing their Importance Using Evidence from Two Discrete-Choice Experiments in England

BACKGROUND

Health systems are moving towards value-based care, implementing new care models that allegedly aim beyond patient outcomes. Therefore, a policy and academic debate is underway regarding the definition of value in healthcare, the inclusion of costs in value metrics, and the importance of each value element. This study aimed to define healthcare value elements and assess their relative importance (RI) to the public in England.

METHOD

Using data from 26 semi-structured interviews and a literature review, and applying decision-theory axioms, we selected a comprehensive and applicable set of value-based elements. Their RI was determined using two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) based on Bayesian D-efficient DCE designs, with one DCE incorporating healthcare costs expressed as income tax rise. Respondent preferences were analysed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Six value elements were identified: additional life-years, health-related quality of life, patient experience, target population size, equity, and cost. The DCE surveys were completed by 402 participants. All utility coefficients had the expected signs and were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additional life-years (25.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.5-28.6%) and patient experience (25.2%; 95% CI 21.6-28.9%) received the highest RI, followed by target population size (22.4%; 95% CI 19.1-25.6%) and quality of life (17.6%; 95% CI 15.0-20.3%). Equity had the lowest RI (9.6%; 95% CI 6.4-12.1%), decreasing by 8.8 percentage points with cost inclusion. A similar reduction was observed in the RI of quality of life when cost was included.

CONCLUSION

The public prioritizes value elements not captured by conventional metrics, such as quality-adjusted life-years. Although cost inclusion did not alter the preference ranking, its inclusion in the value metric warrants careful consideration.

An Egalitarian Perspective on Information Sharing: The Example of Health Care Priorities

In health care, the provision of pertinent information to patients is not just a moral imperative but also a legal obligation, often articulated through the lens of obtaining informed consent. Codes of medical ethics and many national laws mandate the disclosure of basic information about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment alternatives. However, within publicly funded health care systems, other kinds of information might also be important to patients, such as insights into the health care priorities that underlie treatment offers made. While conventional perspectives do not take this as an obligatory part of the information to be shared with patients, perhaps through viewing it as clinically "non-actionable," we advocate for a paradigm shift. Our proposition diverges from the traditional emphasis on actionability. We contend that honoring patients as equal moral agents necessitates, among other principles, a commitment to honesty. Withholding specific categories of information pertinent to patients' comprehension of their situation is inherently incompatible with this principle. In this article, we advocate for a recalibration of the burden of proof. Rather than requiring special justifications for adding to the standard set of information items, we suggest that physicians should be able to justify excluding relevant facts about the patient's situation and the underlying considerations shaping health care professionals' choices. This perspective prioritizes transparency and empowers patients with a comprehensive understanding, aligning with the ethos of respect for the patient as person.

Costs will rather increase

Purpose

The purpose of this paper was to study the unfolding of an urgent and extensive decommissioning program in Sweden, focusing on the public’s reactions and their arguments when opposing the decommissioning activities.

Design/methodology/approach

The public’s responses were studied through local media. Its content was surveyed and divided into actions and arguments. The arguments were further analyzed and categorized into inductively developed themes.

Findings

Protest activities, such as demonstrations, meetings and petitions, were not coordinated, but mostly carried out for withdrawals of unique services and services in remote areas. The public questioned the decision makers’ information, calculations and competence, the adequacy of the consequence analyses and whether the decommissioning activities would lead to any real savings. Patient and public safety, the vulnerable in society, and effects on the local areas were important topics. Thus, it seems the decision makers did not fully succeed in communicating the demonstrable benefits or create clarity of the rationales for decommissioning the particular services. Furthermore, it seems the public has a more inclusive approach to health services and their value compared to decision makers that need to keep the budget.

Originality/value

Decommissioning is an emerging field of research, and this study of the unfolding of an urgent and extensive decommissioning program contributes with evidence that may improve decommissioning policy and practice. The study illustrates that it may be possible to implement a decommissioning program despite public protest, but that the longer-term effects on the health system’s legitimacy need to be studied.

Truncal varicose vein diameter and patient-reported outcome measures

Background

Varicose veins and chronic venous disease are common, and some funding bodies ration treatment based on a minimum diameter of the incompetent truncal vein. This study assessed the effect of maximum vein diameter on clinical status and patient symptoms.

Methods

A prospective observational cohort study of patients presenting with symptomatic varicose veins to a tertiary referral public hospital vascular clinic between January 2011 and July 2012. Patients underwent standardized assessment with venous duplex ultrasonography, and completed questionnaires assessing quality of life (QoL) and symptoms (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, EuroQol Five Domain QoL assessment and EuroQol visual analogue scale). Clinical scores (Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) and Clinical Etiologic Anatomic Pathophysiologic (CEAP) class) were also calculated. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between QoL, symptoms and vein diameter.

Results

Some 330 patients were assessed before surgery. The median maximum vein diameter was 7·0 (i.q.r. 5·3–9·2) mm overall, 7·9 (6·0–9·8) mm for great saphenous vein and 6·0 (5·2–8·9) mm for small saphenous vein. In linear regression analysis, vein diameter was shown to have a significant association with VCSS (P = 0·041). For every 1-mm increase in vein diameter, there was a 2·75-fold increase in risk of being in CEAP class C4 compared with C2. No other QoL or symptom measures were related to vein diameter.

Conclusion

Incompetent truncal vein diameter was associated with increasing VCSS, but not a variety of other varicose vein disease-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures.

Citizens' preferences on healthcare expenditure allocation: evidence from Greece

BACKGROUND OF CONTEXT

Priority setting and resource allocation across various healthcare functions are critical issues in health policy and strategic decision making. As health resources are limited while there are so many health challenges to resolve, consumers and payers have to make difficult decisions about expenditure allocation.

OBJECTIVE

Our research focus on the (dis)agreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across broad healthcare functions, on whether this (dis)agreement is persistent, on whether various demographic factors amplify this (dis)agreement and to derive useful implications for public health policies.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Using survey data of 3029 citizens in Greece for the year 2012 and employing logit estimation techniques, we analysed the effect of demographic and other factors in shaping citizens' (dis)agreement with public health expenditure allocation.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate the important role of income, family members and residence in shaping citizens' preferences regarding health expenditure priorities in almost all healthcare functions, while other demographic factors such as job, age, gender and marital status do partly associate and play a significant role.

CONCLUSIONS

Government should encourage the citizens' participation in the decision-making process in order to eliminate the unveiled and significant disagreement between citizens' preferences and actual public health expenditure across all healthcare functions.

The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) is responsible for making coverage recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans about cancer drugs. Within the pcodr process, small groups of experts (including public representatives) consider the characteristics of each drug and make a funding recommendation. It is important to understand how the values and preferences of those decision-makers compare with the values and preferences of the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. In the present study, stated preference methods were used to elicit prioritization preferences from a representative sample of the Canadian public and a small convenience sample of pcodr committee members. The results suggested that neither group sought strictly to maximize quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gains and that they were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to prioritize particular patient characteristics. Both groups had a significant aversion to prioritizing older patients, patients in good pre-treatment health, and patients in poor post-treatment health. Those results are reassuring, in that they suggest that pcodr decision-maker preferences are consistent with those of the Canadian public, but they also imply that, like the larger public, decision-makers might value health gains to some patients more or less highly than the same gains to others. The implicit nature of pcodr decision criteria means that the acceptability or limits of such differential valuations are unclear. Likewise, there is no guidance as to which potential equity factors-for example, age, initial severity, and so on-are legitimate and which are not. More explicit guidance could improve the consistency and transparency of pcodr recommendations.

Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial

There is growing recognition of the importance of formally including public preferences and values in societal decision-making processes. Constant-sum paired comparison (CSPC), sometimes known as a 'budget pie' task, is a stated preference method than can be used to elicit and measure these preferences and values. It requires respondents to allocate resources between two alternatives, and the relative allocation of this resource is assumed to reflect the importance or priority that respondents attach to the attribute levels in each alternative. CSPC is useful in addressing questions over preferences for the distribution of resources, and allows for an explicit linkage of budget constraints, opportunity costs, outcomes and group characteristics. A key property of CSPC is the ability to allocate some resources to the less preferred alternative, forcing respondents to reflect on the relative value of both alternatives, and possibly giving it an advantage in contexts such as healthcare where respondents may find it ethically difficult or objectionable to make all-or-nothing allocations. This tutorial will outline the theory underlying CSPC, and will work through a detailed example of administering and interpreting a CSPC elicitation, including defining attributes and levels, constructing experimental design, task presentation, and analysis and interpretation.

The politicization of oncology drug funding reviews in Canada

An article in this issue by Srikanthan, [...]

Commissioning for long-term conditions: hearing the voice of and engaging users – a qualitative multiple case study

Background

Some 15 million people in England have a long-term condition (LTC) but there is concern about whether or not the NHS meets their needs. To address this, consecutive governments have developed policies aimed at improving service delivery and patient and public engagement and involvement (PPEI). There has been little research that examines the impact or benefit of PPEI in commissioning. This project explored the role and impact of PPEI in commissioning for people with LTCs. The research was undertaken during a period of substantial change in the English NHS, which enabled us to observe how the NHS reforms in England impacted on approaches to PPEI.

Aim

The aim was to examine how commissioners enable voice and engagement of people with LTCs and identify what impact this has on the commissioning process and pattern of services. Our specific objectives were to (1) critically analyse the relationship between the public/patient voice and the impact on the commissioning process; (2) determine how changes in the commissioning process reshape local services; (3) explore whether or not any such changes in services impact on the patient experience; (4) identify if and how commissioners enable the voice and engagement of people with LTCs; and (5) identify how patient groups/patient representatives get their voice heard and what mechanisms and processes patients and the public use to make their voice heard.

Methods

We used a case study design examining the experience of PPEI in three LTC groups – diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and neurological conditions – through three in-depth case studies. Our approach involved reviewing practice across the UK and then focusing on three geographical areas to examine practices of commissioning health care for people with LTCs, approaches to PPEI, patterns of services for people with LTCs and the activities of local patient and voluntary organisations for people with LTCs. The research had five phases and involved participatory and interactive methods of data collection and analysis.

Findings

We identified two key areas where improvements to practice in relation to PPEI can be made. The first relates to the framework or infrastructure arrangements for PPEI and how PPEI can be supported in the NHS and other organisations. To combat short-termism and the fragility of PPEI activities, sufficient resources need to be invested in developing shared understandings and sustaining relationships and infrastructures. The second area of action relates to the process for PPEI and how it should be undertaken.

Conclusion

Action needs to be taken by organisations at both national and local levels. PPEI is a circular process and, in itself, extremely fragile. This circular process can be ‘virtuous’– successful engagement leads to improved involvement and outcomes. However, where involvement is tokenistic or ends, patients and the public become disengaged and less involved and can be described as a ‘vicious circle’. In addition, we identified a number of key methodological issues and areas for further research that should be considered by research funders and researchers undertaking research in the area of PPEI, including a need for research on PPEI with young people.

Funding

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

Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment

Economic theory suggests that resources should be allocated in a way that produces the greatest outputs, on the grounds that maximizing output allows for a redistribution that could benefit everyone. In health care, this is known as QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) maximization. This justification for QALY maximization may not hold, though, as it is difficult to reallocate health. Therefore, the allocation of health care should be seen as a matter of distributive justice as well as efficiency. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to test consistency with the principles of QALY maximization and to quantify the willingness to trade life-year gains for distributive justice. An empirical ethics process was used to identify attributes that appeared relevant and ethically justified: patient age, severity (decomposed into initial quality and life expectancy), final health state, duration of benefit, and distributional concerns. Only 3% of respondents maximized QALYs with every choice, but scenarios with larger aggregate QALY gains were chosen more often and a majority of respondents maximized QALYs in a majority of their choices. However, respondents also appeared willing to prioritize smaller gains to preferred groups over larger gains to less preferred groups. Marginal analyses found a statistically significant preference for younger patients and a wider distribution of gains, as well as an aversion to patients with the shortest life expectancy or a poor final health state. These results support the existence of an equity-efficiency tradeoff and suggest that well-being could be enhanced by giving priority to programs that best satisfy societal preferences. Societal preferences could be incorporated through the use of explicit equity weights, although more research is required before such weights can be used in priority setting.

Priority setting in Swedish health care: are the politicians ready?

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation in public health care principally involves politicians, administrators, and physicians. They all have their different roles, agendas and ambitions when it comes to how public health care resources should be spent. Previous studies on attitudes among health-care stakeholders have mainly focused on views and preferences among clinical decision-makers, while less attention has been paid to the views of health care politicians.

AIM

The study aimed to investigate if the health care politicians' views on priority setting and decision-making in health care differed from other stakeholder groups.

METHOD

The study was based on a questionnaire conducted among health care politicians, administrators, and physicians in four county councils in Southern Sweden.

RESULTS

The findings show significant differences between the politicians and the other two groups in their views on health-care resources, financing, priority setting and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings could, at least partly, be explained by the special situation it means for the politicians to be forced to be re-elected every fourth year to stay in power.