Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: application of the rule of rescue?

'Empathy counterbalancing' to mitigate the 'identified victim effect'? Ethical reflections on cognitive debiasing strategies to increase support for healthcare priority setting

Priority setting is inevitable to control expenditure on expensive medicines, but citizen support is often hampered by the workings of the 'identified victim effect', that is, the greater willingness to spend resources helping identified victims than helping statistical victims. In this paper we explore a possible cognitive debiasing strategy that is being employed in discussions on healthcare priority setting, which we call 'empathy counterbalancing' (EC). EC is the strategy of directing attention to, and eliciting empathy for, those who might be harmed as a result of one-sided empathy for the very ill who needs expensive treatment. We argue that governments have good reasons to attempt EC because the identified victim effect distorts priority setting in ways that undermine procedural fairness. We briefly outline three areas of application for EC and suggest some possible mechanisms that might explain how EC might work, if at all. We then discuss four potential ethical concerns with EC. First, EC might have the counterproductive effect of reducing overall citizen support for public funding of expensive medical treatments, thereby undermining solidarity. Second, EC may give rise to a 'competition in suffering', which may have unintended side effects for patients who feature in attempts at EC. Third, there may be doubts about whether EC is effective. Fourth, it may be objected that EC comes down to emotional manipulation, which governments should avoid. We conclude that insofar these concerns are valid they may be adequately addressed, and that EC seems a promising strategy that merits further investigation.

The role of HER2 as a therapeutic biomarker in gynaecological malignancy: potential for use beyond uterine serous carcinoma

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is a prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in carcinomas of the breast, stomach and colon. In 2018, clinical trial data confirmed the prognostic and predictive role of HER2 in uterine serous carcinoma, with a demonstrated survival benefit from combined chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent disease. Approximately one-third of uterine serous carcinomas demonstrate HER2 protein overexpression and/or gene amplification and HER2 immunohistochemistry, supplemented by in situ hybridisation in equivocal cases, is fast becoming a reflex ancillary test at time of diagnosis. The potential role of HER2 in gynaecological tumours other than uterine serous carcinoma is yet to be firmly established. With the advent of personalised medicine, routine tumour sequencing and pursuit of targeted therapies, this is a field currently under active investigation. Emerging data suggest triaging endometrial carcinomas for HER2 analysis based on molecular classification may be superior to histotype-based testing, with copy-number high/p53 mutant tumours enriched for HER2 overexpression or amplification. Accordingly, many carcinosarcomas and a subset of clear cell and high-grade endometrioid carcinomas may be eligible for HER2 targeted therapy, although any clinical benefit in this context is currently undefined. For ovarian carcinomas, combined data support the role of HER2 as a prognostic biomarker, however its use as a therapeutic target is yet to be elucidated through clinical trials. In the cervix, reported rates of HER2 overexpression vary and are generally low, and currently there is insufficient evidence to justify routine HER2 testing in this context. Limited data suggest HER2 holds promise as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in vulvar Paget disease. Future clinical trials, with pathologist input to develop and refine site-specific scoring criteria, are required to establish what role HER2 might play more broadly in gynaecological cancer care.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Children as voices and images for medicinal cannabis law reform

This article situates the movement for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis within the bigger picture of the impetus toward recreational cannabis legalisation. It describes the role played by children with epileptic syndromes in the medicinal cannabis law reform campaigns in the United Kingdom, and Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in Australia. Noting the 'rule of rescue' and the prominence in media campaigns of children in Australian and English cases of parental disputation with clinicians about treatment for their children, it reviews whether paediatric epilepsy is a suitable test case for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. Taking into account the vested commercial interests of Big Cannabis, the current medico-scientific knowledge of the efficacy of medicinal cannabis in controlling paediatric epileptic seizures, and issues of dignity, health privacy, and the enduring digital footprints of media coverage, the article commences discussion about the ethics of the media, parents, politicians and entrepreneurial doctors utilising parents' testimonials about the effects of medicinal cannabis as part of the cannabis law reform movement.

Personalized Cancer Medicine in the Media: Sensationalism or Realistic Reporting?

BACKGROUND

Given that media coverage can shape healthcare expectations, it is essential that we understand how the media frames "personalized medicine" (PM) in oncology, and whether information about unproven technologies is widely disseminated.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of 396 news reports related to cancer and PM published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011. Two coders independently coded all the reports using a pre-defined framework. Determination of coverage of "standard" and "non-standard" therapies and tests was made by comparing the media print/broadcast date to the date of Federal Drug Administration approval or incorporation into clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Although the term "personalized medicine" appeared in all reports, it was clearly defined only 27% of the time. Stories more frequently reported PM benefits than challenges (96% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Commonly reported benefits included improved treatment (89%), prediction of side effects (30%), disease risk prediction (33%), and lower cost (19%). Commonly reported challenges included high cost (28%), potential for discrimination (29%), and concerns over privacy and regulation (21%). Coverage of inherited DNA testing was more common than coverage of tumor testing (79% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Media reports of standard tests and treatments were common; however, 8% included information about non-standard technologies, such as experimental medications and gene therapy.

CONCLUSION

Confusion about personalized cancer medicine may be exacerbated by media reports that fail to clearly define the term. While most media stories reported on standard tests and treatments, an emphasis on the benefits of PM may lead to unrealistic expectations for cancer genomic care.

Policy Challenges for Organ Allocation in an Era of "Precision Medicine"

There is increasing interest in the use of precision medicine tools and evidence-based outcome measures for donor-recipient matching to optimize transplant outcomes. Although the shift toward greater precision can provide health and resource benefits, it may be perceived as conflicting with both established equity-focused organ allocation norms and the legal and ethical obligations of health care providers and related institutions. With increasing evidence that various forms of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch and/or prognostic biomarkers can affect outcomes, the tension between maximizing utility and ensuring equity seems likely to intensify. In Canada, health care providers are generally required by law to put the interests of their patient, such as access to an organ, above the needs of the health care system and other patients. In addition, transplantation right of access lawsuits, which have been successful in the past, could affect the implementation of precision approaches. These legal tensions could be further heightened by media representations, which have historically favored strong rights of access. When implementing new precision technologies in organ allocation, there will be a recurrent need for policymakers to revisit the balance of equity and utility and to assess how to craft rules that reflect our society’s conception of a fair allocation system.

Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?

Consumer engagement in decisions about the funding of medicines is often framed as a good in and of itself and as an activity that should be universally encouraged. A common justification for calls for consumer engagement is that it enhances equity. In this paper we systematically critique this assumption. We show that consumer engagement may undermine equity as well as enhance it and show that a simple relationship cannot be assumed but must be justified and demonstrated. In concluding, we present a number of challenges that need to be overcome in order for consumer engagement to contribute to health technology assessment in a morally and politically sound manner.

Towards an Integration of PrEP into a Safe Sex Ethics Framework for Men Who Have Sex with Men

The ethics of safe sex in the gay community has, for many years, been focused on debates surrounding the responsibility (or lack thereof) regarding the use of condoms to prevent HIV transmission, once the only tool available. With the development of Truvada as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV, for the first time in the history of the HIV/AIDS epidemic there is the potential to significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission during sex without the use of condoms (without taking into consideration 'treatment as prevention' with HIV-positive people). The introduction of PrEP necessitates a renewed discussion about the politics and ethics of safe sex for men who have sex with men (MSM). We present the arguments of authors who hold radically opposite positions with regard to the ethics of condom use by gay men, but who currently both criticize the use of PrEP. We offer a critique of their arguments and advance the position that the use of PrEP, even without condoms, can be acceptable and part of a safe sex ethics framework for MSM.

LEGITIMACY OF MEDICINES FUNDING IN THE ERA OF ACCELERATED ACCESS

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the legitimacy of health technology assessment processes. Despite efforts to implement these "legitimacy frameworks," medicines funding decisions can still be perceived as lacking in legitimacy. We, therefore, sought to examine stakeholder views on factors that they think should be considered when making decisions about the funding of high-cost breast cancer therapies, focusing on those that are not included in current frameworks and processes.

METHODS

We analyzed published discourse on the funding of high-cost breast-cancer therapies. Relevant materials were identified by searching the databases Google, Google Scholar, and Factiva in August 2014 and July 2016 and these were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We analyzed fifty published materials and found that stakeholders, for the most part, want to be able to access medicines more quickly and at the same time as other patients and for decision makers to be more flexible with regards to evidence requirements and to use a wider range of criteria when evaluating therapies. Many also advocated for existing process to be accelerated or bypassed to improve access to therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate that a stakeholder-derived conceptualization of legitimacy emphasizes principles of accelerated access and is not fully accounted for by existing frameworks and processes aimed at promoting legitimacy. However, further research examining the ethical, political, and clinical implications of the stakeholder claims raised here is needed before firm policy recommendations can be made.

Access to High Cost Cancer Medicines Through the Lens of an Australian Senate Inquiry-Defining the "Goods" at Stake

Cancer is a major burden on populations and health systems internationally. The development of innovative cancer medicines is seen as a significant part of the solution. These new cancer medicines are, however, expensive, leading to limited or delayed access and disagreements among stakeholders about which medicines to fund. There is no obvious resolution to these disagreements, with stakeholders holding firmly to divergent positions. Access to cancer medicines was recently explored in Australia in a Senate Inquiry into the Availability of New, Innovative, and Specialist Cancer Drugs in Australia. We analysed the resultant Senate Report to identify competing stakeholder values. Our analysis illustrates that there are four main "goods" prioritized by different stakeholders: 1) innovation, 2) compassion, 3) equity, and 4) sustainability. We observe that, with the exception of sustainability, all of these "goods" put pressure on payers to provide access to cancer medicines more quickly and based on less rigorous evaluation processes. We then explore the consequences of giving in to such pressure and suggest that deconstructing the implicit values in calls for "enhanced access" to cancer medicines is necessary so that more nuanced solutions to the challenge of providing access to these high cost medicines can be found.

The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions

CONTEXT

Policy makers and insurance companies decide on coverage of care by both calculating (cost-) effectiveness and assessing the necessity of coverage.

AIM

To investigate argumentations pertaining to necessity used in coverage decisions made by policy makers and insurance companies, as well as those argumentations used by patients, authors, the public and the media.

METHODS

This study is designed as a realist review, adhering to the RAMESES quality standards. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched and 98 articles were included that detailed necessity-based argumentations.

RESULTS

We identified twenty necessity-based argumentation types. Seven are only used to argue in favour of coverage, five solely for arguing against coverage, and eight are used to argue both ways. A positive decision appears to be facilitated when patients or the public set the decision on the agenda. Moreover, half the argumentation types are only used by patients, authors, the public and the media, whereas the other half is also used by policy makers and insurance companies. The latter group is more accepted and used in more different countries.

CONCLUSION

The majority of necessity-based argumentation types is used for either favouring or opposing coverage, and not for both. Patients, authors, the public and the media use a broader repertoire of argumentation types than policy makers and insurance companies.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder on YouTube: Framing, Anchoring, and Objectification in Social Media

This study investigated videos about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) on YouTube in terms of issues, sources, and episodic-thematic aspects. A total of 685 videos uploaded onto YouTube between 2006 and 2014 were content analyzed. Results demonstrated that the top three key issues about ADHD were symptom, child, and treatment. Doctor, patient, and supporter were the three most interviewed sources. Videos from the public sector including the government, company representative, and public organizations were relatively rare compared to other sources suggesting the potential for a greater role for the government and public sector contributions to YouTube to provide credible information relevant to public awareness, campaigns, and policy announcements. Meanwhile, many personal videos in the episodic frame advocated social solutions. This result implies that YouTube videos about health information from the private sectors have the potential to affect change at the social level.

Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia

BACKGROUND

Around the world government agencies responsible for the selection and reimbursement of prescribed medicines and other health technologies are considering how best to bring community preferences into their decision making. In particular, community views about the distribution or equity of funding across the population. These official committees and agencies often have access to the best available and latest evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety and cost from large clinical trials and population-based studies. All too often they do not have access to high quality evidence about community views. We therefore, conducted a large and representative population-based survey in Australia to determine what community members think about the factors that do and should influence government spending on prescribed medicines.

METHODS

A choice-based survey was designed to elicit the importance of individual criteria when considering the equity of government spending on prescribed medicines. A representative sample of 3080 adult Australians completed the survey by allocating a hypothetical budget to different combinations of money spent on two patient populations. Societal preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e. populations with more than 50% of respondents' allocation for a particular allocation criterion.

RESULTS

This study shows that, all else being equal, severity of disease, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off, and life-style unrelated diseases are supported by the public as resource allocation criteria. Where 'all else is not equal', participants allocated more resources to the patient population that gained considerable improvement in health and fewer resources to those that gained little improvement in health. This result held under all scenarios except for 'end-of-life treatments'. Responses to cost (and corresponding number of patients treated) trade-off scenarios indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents choosing to divide resources equally and a shift in preference towards devoting resources to the population that were more costly to treat for all criteria with the exception of severity of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The general public have clear views on what's fair in terms of government spending on prescribed medicines. In addition to supporting the application of the 'rule of rescue', important considerations for government spending included the severity of disease being treated, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off and life-style unrelated diseases. This study shows that the general public are willing to share their views on what constitutes an equitable allocation of the government's drug budget. The challenge remains to how best to consider those views alongside clinical and economic considerations.

Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Measuring societal preferences for rarity has been proposed to determine whether paying premium prices for orphan drugs is acceptable.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate societal preferences for rarity and how psychological factors affect such preferences.

METHOD

A postal survey containing resource allocation dilemmas involving patients with a rare disease and patients with a common disease, equal in severity, was sent out to a randomly selected sample of the population in Sweden (return rate 42.3%, n = 1270).

RESULTS

Overall, we found no evidence of a general preference for prioritizing treatment of patients with rare disease patients over those with common diseases. When treatment costs were equal, most respondents (42.7%) were indifferent between the choice options. Preferences for prioritizing patients with common diseases over those with rare diseases were more frequently displayed (33.3% v. 23.9%). This tendency was, as expected, amplified when the rare disease was costlier to treat. The share of respondents choosing to treat patients with rare diseases increased when presenting the patients in need of treatment in relative rather than absolute terms (proportion dominance). Surprisingly, identifiability did not increase preferences for rarity. Instead, identifying the patient with a rare disease made respondents more willing to prioritize the patients with common diseases. Respondents' levels of education were significantly associated with choice-the lower the level of education, the more likely they were to choose the rare option.

CONCLUSIONS

We find no support for the existence of a general preference for rarity when setting health care priorities. Psychological effects, especially proportion dominance, are likely to play an important role when preferences for rarity are expressed.

Trends of Media Coverage on Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Japanese Newspapers

A sensational newspaper article concerning a possible adverse reaction to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was published in March 2013 in Japan. In June 2013, the Japanese government suspended their proactive recommendation for vaccination, despite the lack of proof for a causal relationship. We searched Nikkei Telecom 21, the largest newspaper database in Japan, for articles published from January 2011 to December 2015 to evaluate the characteristics of newspaper publications about human papillomavirus vaccination. We identified 1138 HPV vaccine-related articles. Compared with those published before March 2013, articles concerning human papillomavirus vaccination after March 2013 were more likely to include adverse reaction-related and authority-related keywords; articles that included efficacy-related keywords decreased significantly. Negative-negative and negative-neutral articles became more frequent, and positive-positive and positive-neutral articles were less frequent. A sensational case report shaped the tone of negative media coverage as a catalyst, regardless of scientific statements from health authorities.

Adoption of trastuzumab for breast cancer in four emerging countries in the use of health technology assessment: a case study

AIM

To describe processes for the adoption of trastuzumab in four countries in the use of health technology assessment (HTA): Poland, Albania, Brazil and Colombia.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Mixed methods were used for collection and triangulation of data. Data were examined following a conceptual framework connecting HTA process steps and key principles.

RESULTS

Trastuzumab was generally assessed following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, areas of improvement were detected in terms of transparency and inclusiveness, as well as in methods used. The extent to which different criteria influenced decisions was unclear.

CONCLUSION

This study covers an area in which information may not always be available, and sets the example for emerging countries interested in HTA. Further studies to gain a better understanding on decision-making across settings are warranted.

Controversies with Kalydeco: Newspaper coverage in Canada and the United States of the cystic fibrosis "wonder drug"

BACKGROUND

The cystic fibrosis drug, Kalydeco, has attracted attention both for its effectiveness in particular CF patients and its substantial price tag. An analysis of newspaper portrayals of Kalydeco provides an opportunity to examine how policy issues associated with rare diseases and orphan drugs are being represented in the popular press.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of 203 newspaper articles in Canada and the U.S. that mention Kalydeco. Articles were analyzed for their main frame, discussion of Kalydeco, including issues of drug development, patient access, and reimbursement, and overall tone.

RESULTS

In Canadian newspaper coverage, 77.4% of articles were framed as human interest stories featuring individual patients seeking public funding for Kalydeco, yet only 7.5% mentioned any budgetary limitations in doing so. In contrast, U.S. newspaper coverage was framed as a financial/economic story in 43.1% of articles and a medical/scientific story in 27.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Newspaper coverage varied significantly between Canada, where Kalydeco is predominantly a story about increasing patient access through full government funding, and the U.S., where Kalydeco is largely a financial story about the economic impact of Kalydeco. The difference in coverage may be due to differences in public funding between the healthcare systems of these two countries.

Improving the Legitimacy of Medicines Funding Decisions: A Critical Literature Review

Many health care systems globally provide publicly subsidized access to prescribed medicines. Decisions about which medicines to fund affect a range of stakeholders, and it is not reasonable to expect that medicines funding decisions are supported by all stakeholder groups all the time. A more realistic aim may be for decisions to be understood and accepted as legitimate by stakeholders; however, several shortcomings of existing processes make it difficult to achieve this aim. To date, the main strategy to address these shortcomings has been to increase stakeholder involvement in decision making, either by eliciting stakeholder values or increasing stakeholder participation in decision making. Despite these efforts, there is growing evidence that decision makers are falling short when it comes to the perceived legitimacy of their resource allocation processes and decisions. As such, there is a pressing need for decision makers to think seriously and creatively about ways to increase the legitimacy of their processes and to make them more acceptable to a wider range of stakeholders. In this article we summarize and critique existing literature on the legitimacy of public resource allocation processes, and we make some practical suggestions for those who are concerned about this issue.

Citizens' Perspectives on Disinvestment from Publicly Funded Pathology Tests: A Deliberative Forum

BACKGROUND

Deliberative forums can be useful tools in policy decision making for balancing citizen voice and community values against dominant interests.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a deliberative forum to explore community perspectives on a complex health problem-disinvestment.

METHODS

A deliberative forum of citizens was convened in Adelaide, South Australia, to develop criteria to support disinvestment from public funding of ineffective pathology tests. The case study of potential disinvestment from vitamin B12/folate pathology testing was used to shape the debate. The forum was informed by a systematic review of B12/folate pathology test effectiveness and expert testimony.

RESULTS

The citizens identified seven criteria: cost of the test, potential impact on individual health/capacity to benefit, potential cost to society, public good, alternatives to testing, severity of the condition, and accuracy of the test. The participants not only saw these criteria as an interdependent network but also questioned "the authority" of policymakers to make these decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Coherence between the criteria devised by the forum and those described by an expert group was considerable, the major differences being that the citizens did not consider equity issues and the experts neglected the "cost" of social and emotional impact of disinvestment on users and the society.

Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study

Background

Withdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public.

Objectives

We present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.

Methods

We drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders.

Results

In 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes.

Conclusions

Improving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, ‘black-triangle’ equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.

Receptive rationing: reflections and suggestions for priority setters in health care

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to take forward consideration of context in health care priority setting and to offer some practical strategies for priority setters to increase receptiveness to their work.

Design/methodology/approach

– A number of tools and methods have been devised with the aim of making health care priority setting more robust and evidence based. However, in order to routinely take and implement priority setting decisions, decision makers require the support, or at least the acquiescence, of key external parties. In other words, the priority setting process requires a receptive context if it is to proceed unhindered.

Findings

– The priority setting process requires a receptive context if it is to proceed unhindered.

Originality/value

– This paper develops the concept of legitimacy in the “authorising environment” in priority setting and describes strategies which might help decision makers to create a receptive context, and to manage relationships with external stakeholders.

The media and access issues: content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of health policy decisions

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated how the media has an influence on policy decisions and healthcare coverage. Studies of Canadian media have shown that news coverage often emphasizes and hypes certain aspects of high profile health debates. We hypothesized that in Canadian media coverage of access to healthcare issues about therapies and technologies including for rare diseases, the media would be largely sympathetic towards patients, thus adding to public debate that largely favors increased access to healthcare—even in the face of equivocal evidence regarding efficacy.

Methods

In order to test this hypothesis, we conducted a content analysis of 530 news articles about access to health therapies and technologies from 15 major Canadian newspapers over a 10-year period. Articles were analyzed for the perspectives presented in the articles and the types of reasons or arguments presented either for or against the particular access issue portrayed in the news articles.

Results

We found that news media coverage was largely sympathetic towards increasing healthcare funding and ease of access to healthcare (77.4 %). Rare diseases and orphan drugs were the most common issues raised (22.6 %). Patients perspectives were often highlighted in articles (42.3 %). 96.8 % of articles discussed why access to healthcare needs to increase, and discussion that questioned increased access was only included in 33.6 % articles.

Conclusion

We found that news media favors a patient access ethos, which may contribute to a difficult policy-making environment.

Identifying stakeholder opinion regarding access to “high-cost medicines”: A systematic review of the literature

Objective: To identify the viewpoints and perceptions of different stakeholders regarding high cost medicines (HCMs). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify original research articles. Using predefined categories, data related to the viewpoints of different stakeholders was systematically extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirty seven original research articles matched the criteria. The main stakeholders identified include physicians, patients, public and health funding authorities. The influence of media and other economic and ethical issues were also identified in the literature. A large number of stakeholders were concerned about lack of access to HCMs. Physicians have difficulty balancing the the rational use of expensive drugs while at the same time acting as “patients’ advocate”. Patients would like to know about all treatment options, even if they may not be able to afford them. The process and criteria for reimbursement should be transparent and access has to be equitable across patient groups. Conclusion: Access to HCMs could be improved through transparency and involvement of all stakeholders, especially patients and the public. Moral issues and the “rule of rescue” could influence decision-making process significantly. At system level, objectivity is important to ensure that the system is equitable and transparent.

Ethics, evidence and economics in the pursuit of "personalized medicine"

Despite enthusiastic advocacy for what personalized medicine might be able to deliver and major investments into the development of this, there remain disappointingly few examples of personalized medicine in routine clinical practice today, particularly in high areas of unmet need such as cancer. We believe that this is because personalized medicine challenges the moral, economic and epistemological foundations of medicine. In this article, we briefly describe the scientific premises underpinning personalized medicine, contrast these with traditional paradigms of drug development, and then consider the ethical, economic and epistemological implications of this approach to medicine.

Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia

Background

Previous analyses of the listings of trastuzumab on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and HPV vaccine on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) suggest a media influence on policy makers. We examined the timing and content of Australian newspaper reports of medicines in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions.

Methods

We identified newspaper reports (2005-2008) of medicines recommended for PBS listing in 2006–2007, analysing the content for mentions of the medicine, PBS and medicine costs to the patient and the government and counting the numbers of articles published in the six months before, the month of, and the six months after the relevant PBAC meeting. Case studies examined reporting for infliximab for Crohn’s Disease, pemetrexed for mesothelioma, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) medicines atomoxetine and methylphenidate.

Results

Of 79 eligible medicines, 62 had news reports. Most often reported were HPV vaccine (1230 stories), trastuzumab (410), pemetrexed (83), botulinum toxin (71), lapatinib (65), methylphenidate (57), atomoxetine (54), infliximab (49), rotavirus vaccine (45). Eighteen medicines had ≥20 news reports (total 2350 stories); nine of these cost more than AU$10,000 per course or year of treatment. For these 18 medicines, 31% of stories appeared in the six months prior to the PBAC meeting, 14% in the meeting month and 33% in the six months post-meeting. 38% of the stories had ≥3 medicine mentions, 37% referred to the PBS, 24% to cost to the patient, and 9% cost to Government.

There was active patient lobby group campaigning in support of listing of infliximab and pemetrexed; the stories for ADHD were often more negative, referring to the dangers of the medicines and sometimes questioning the appropriateness of treatment and public subsidy. There was little discussion of the PBAC’s evidence-based decision-making processes.

Conclusions

While there was no general trend to increased news reporting associated with PBAC meetings, some drugs did attract media attention. With more new and expensive drugs, decisions on public funding will become increasingly difficult. The media have an important role in enhancing public understanding of the issues around resource allocation. Specialist journalists, guidelines and checklists may help reporting.

Consumer beware: a systematic assessment of potential bias in the lay electronic media to examine the portrayal of "PARP" inhibitors for cancer treatment

This study examined how the lay electronic media covers poly-ADP-ribose polymerase, or "PARP," inhibitors, a class of cancer agents currently under clinical investigation. Of 771 internet links, 51 targeted the lay public. Independent review by two investigators yielded the following categorizations: 36 (71%) were "overly positive", 15 (29%) "neutral", and none "overly negative". "Overly positive" articles used: (l) overstated benefit, (2) included quotations from enthusiastic scientists, and (3) discussed single or small patient subsets. They used such phrases as "the holy grail of cancer research", "the most exciting development in cancer research in a decade or more…. it could save thousands of lives", and "we were surprised and delighted…. it's the kind of thing you don't really think will happen". Healthcare providers should be aware of the foregoing when discussing PARP inhibitors-and perhaps other novel therapies-with cancer patients.

Breaking up is hard to do: the economic impact of provisional funding contingent upon evidence development

Funding contingent upon evidence development (FED) has recently been the subject of some considerable debate in the literature but relatively little has been made of its economic impact. We argue that FED has the potential to shorten the lag between innovation and access but may also (i) crowd-out more valuable interventions in situations in which there is a fixed dedicated budget; or (ii) lead to a de facto increase in the funding threshold and increased expenditure growth in situations in which the programme budget is open-ended. Although FED would typically entail periodic review of provisional or interim listings, it may prove difficult to withdraw funding even at cost/QALY ratios well in excess of current listing thresholds. Further consideration of the design and implementation of FED processes is therefore required to ensure that its introduction yields net benefits over existing processes.

"No respecter of youth": over-representation of young women in Australian television coverage of breast cancer

Ninety four percent of new breast cancer cases in Australian women occur in those aged over 40. Mammographic breast screening programs target women over 40, especially those aged 50-69, but participation rates in this age group have recently declined. To test the hypothesis that young women, at low risk for breast cancer, are overrepresented in television news, we analyzed all televised news reports on age and breast cancer shown on five free-to-air Sydney television stations, from 3 May 2005 to 28 February 2007, to determine the age of women shown with, or at risk for, the disease. Over half (55%) of statements about age and breast cancer referred to young women stated or known to be aged under 40. Sixty seven percent of images of women in breast cancer reports were known or judged to be women aged under 40. Three cases in young celebrity women accounted for 53% of all statements and 24% of all images about young women and breast cancer. Overrepresentation of young women with breast cancer in television news coverage does not reflect the epidemiology of the disease. This imbalance may contribute to public uncertainty regarding screening policy.

Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia?

BACKGROUND

The hurdle of cost effectiveness for the selection and reimbursement of drugs in Australia limits access to new medicines based on an assessment of cost relative to clinical benefit. Those drugs that are expensive and provide modest benefits will be less likely to receive a government price subsidy. There is concern that the cost-effectiveness hurdle will limit access to new cancer treatments because of their high costs and modest benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that Ceteris paribus, cancer drugs are less likely to receive a recommendation for reimbursement on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) than non-cancer drugs.

METHODS

We reviewed public summary documents (PSDs) on all major submissions considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from July 2005 to March 2008. Each PSD includes summary information on the clinical, economic and utilization considerations of the PBAC in arriving at a recommendation. A total of 227 PSDs were reviewed, from which 243 PBAC recommendations were identified. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of drug type (cancer vs non-cancer) and other potentially confounding variables on the outcome of PBS approval versus non-approval.

RESULTS

There were 243 PBAC recommendations in 227 published PSDs: 108 for rejection (44%), 10 deferrals (4%) and 125 (51%) recommendations for listing. Recommendations for listing were made somewhat more often for non-cancer drugs than for cancer drugs: 104/191 (54%) versus 21/52 (40%), respectively; p = 0.07. Based on the results for univariable analyses, there is evidence that four variables have some association (p < 0.25) with PBAC approval, but only type of application, economic modelling and estimated cost to the PBS remained statistically significant at p < 0.05 in the multivariable model. No interaction terms were statistically significant. Cancer drug submissions tend to have a modelled economic evaluation and have a higher cost per QALY than non-cancer drugs (29% vs 15% of cancer and non-cancer drugs, respectively had a reported modelled cost per QALY of more than Australian dollars [$A]45 000; p < 0.001). Submissions that include a modelled economic evaluation and have a higher cost per QALY get approved less often than submissions without an economic modelling (p = 0.04). However, after adjusting for economic modelling, there is no statistical difference between cancer and non-cancer drugs in terms of gaining recommendation for PBS listing.

CONCLUSION

The PBAC applies decision criteria equitably to cancer and non-cancer drugs, in that cancer drugs are neither favoured nor disadvantaged but they are more expensive and target a smaller population than non-cancer drugs. Further debate and research is needed to determine society's willingness to pay for a QALY and whether this differs between drugs for cancer and other indications or for interventions that differ on criteria other than cost effectiveness.

Trick or treat? Australian newspaper portrayal of complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of cancer

PURPOSE

Many cancer patients within developed nations cite the media as informing their decisions to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The present study describes (1) Australian newspaper coverage of CAM use for cancer between 1998 and 2007; (2) trends in reporting frequency and characteristics; and (3) how the Australian press framed stories on CAM use for cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a content analysis featuring quantitative and qualitative techniques, the latter guided by 'media framing', of targeted newspaper articles.

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen articles focused on CAM use for the treatment of cancer were identified. Quantitative analysis found that biologically based CAMs were most frequently described and breast cancer most mentioned. Two thirds of all articles described CAM use in the context of a cure, with approximately half of these opposing this reason for use. Potential benefits of CAM were discussed more frequently than potential risks, and information on costs and how to access CAM were uncommon. Recommendations included advice to use complementary, not alternative therapies, yet advice to discuss CAM with a medical doctor was rare. Qualitative analysis found six CAM cancer-related frames, four in support of CAM use for cancer treatment. The dominant frame constructed CAM as legitimate tools to assist biomedicine (even to cure), with others depicting CAM as normal and necessary or as addressing limitations of biomedicine. Negative frames depicted CAM as questionable and risky practices and the industry/practitioners as possessing malevolent intent.

CONCLUSION

These findings have implications for biomedical practitioners attempting to determine, respect and assist patient choices about their treatment.