Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy

Background

The reimbursement for expensive medicines poses a growing challenge to healthcare worldwide. In order to increase its control over the costs of medicines, the Dutch government introduced the Coverage Lock (CL) policy in 2015. The CL postpones decisions regarding reimbursement of expensive medicines until detailed advice on i.e., cost-effectiveness has been given. The CL has been in place for six years, has raised many questions and concerns, but currently, no evaluation is known to the authors. A better understanding of the effects of the CL on all stakeholders involved may contribute to reflections on the CL process and help find ways to improve it. An evaluation of Dutch policy will also be relevant for other countries that aim to optimize reimbursement procedures for expensive treatments. To perform this evaluation, we focused on the CL procedure for the medicine nusinersen. Nusinersen is the first treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Following EMA approval in May 2017, it was placed in the CL. The analysis of cost-effectiveness and added therapeutic value resulted in an advice for reimbursement limited to children younger than 9.5 years at the start of treatment; this was implemented from August 2018 onwards.

Methods

Qualitative stakeholder perspective analysis of the CL procedure focusing on nusinersen with 15 stakeholders.

Results

Stakeholders raised key issues of the CL based on their experience with nusinersen: emotional impact of the CL, duration of the CL procedure, appropriateness of the CL procedure for different types of medicines, transparency of the CL, a wish for patient-centred decision-making and the lack of uniformity of access to expensive treatments.

Discussion

Stakeholders supported measures to control healthcare expenses and to ensure reasonable pricing. They considered the delay in access to therapies and lack of procedural transparency to be the main challenges to the CL. Stakeholders also agreed that the interests of patients deserve more attention in the practical implementation of the reimbursement decision. Stakeholders suggested a number of adjustments to improve the CL, such as a faster start with conditional reimbursement programs to ensure access and intensify European collaboration to speed up the assessment of the medicine.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08690-z.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Candidacy Decisions: An Argument for a Process-Based Longitudinal Approach

Are all children extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidates? Navigating ECMO decisions represents an enormous challenge in pediatric critical care. ECMO cannulation should not be a default option as it will not confer benefit for "all" critically ill children; however, "all" children deserve well-considered decisions surrounding their ECMO candidacy. The complexity of the decision demands a systematic, "well-reasoned" and "dynamic" approach. Due to clinical urgency, this standard cannot always be met prior to initiation of ECMO. We challenge the paradigm of "candidacy" as a singular decision that must be defined prior to ECMO initiation. Rather, the determination as to whether ECMO is in the patient's best interest is applicable regardless of cannulation status. The priority should be on collaborative, interdisciplinary decision-making processes aligned with principles of transparency, relevant reasoning, accountability, review, and appeal. To ensure a robust process, it should not be temporally constrained by cannulation status. We advocate that this approach will decrease both the risk of not initiating ECMO in a patient who will benefit and the risk of prolonged, nonbeneficial support. We conclude that to ensure fair decisions are made in a patient's best interest, organizations should develop procedurally fair processes for ECMO decision-making that are not tied to a particular time point and are revisited along the management trajectory.

How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries

Introduction: The expansion of orphan drug treatment at increasing prices, together with uncertainties regarding their (cost-)effectiveness raises difficulties for decision-makers to assess these drugs for reimbursement. The present qualitative study aims to gain better insight into current value assessment and appraisal frameworks for orphan drugs, and provides guidance for improvement. Methods: 22 European experts from 19 different countries were included in a qualitative survey, followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews. These experts were academics, members of reimbursement agencies or health authorities, or members of regulatory or health/social insurance institutions. Adopting a Grounded Theory approach, transcripts were analysed according to the QUAGOL method, supported by the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo. Results: Although participants indicated several good practices (e.g., the involvement of patients and the presence of structure and consistency), several barriers (e.g., the lack of transparency) lead to questions regarding the efficiency of the overall reimbursement process. In addition, the study identified a number of "contextual" determinants (e.g., bias, perverse effects of the orphan drug legislation, and an inadequate consideration of the opportunity cost), which may undermine the legitimacy of orphan drug reimbursement decisions. Conclusion: The present study provides guidance for decision-makers to improve the efficiency of orphan drug reimbursement. In particular, decision-makers can generate quick wins by limiting the impact of contextual determinants rather than improving the methods included in the HTA. When implemented into a framework that promotes "Accountability for Reasonableness" (A4R), this allows decision-makers to improve the legitimacy of reimbursement decisions concerning future orphan drugs.

Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study

Background

The National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a list of health services to which all Israeli residents are entitled. For the past 20 years, the list has been updated annually, as a function of a predetermined budget, according to recommendations from the Public National Advisory Committee (PNAC), which evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies. We assessed the legitimacy of this resource-allocation process as reflected in Israeli public discourse and its congruence with the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework.

Methods

A qualitative analysis of public discourse documents (articles in the print media, court rulings and parliamentary debates (N = 119) was conducted to assess the perceived legitimacy by the Israeli public of the PNAC. Further content analysis of these documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (N = 70) revealed the mainstays and threats to its legitimacy. Based on these data sources, on governmental documents specifying PNAC's procedures, and on data from participant observations, we assessed its congruence with A4R’s four conditions: publicity, relevance, revision and appeals, regulation.

Results

The PNAC enjoys ongoing support for its legitimacy in Israeli public discourse, which stem from its perceived professional focus and transparency. These strengths are consistent with the A4R’s emphasis on the publicity and the relevance conditions. The three major threats to PNAC's legitimacy pertain to: (1) the composition of the committee; (2) its operating procedures; (3) its guiding principles. These perceived shortcomings are also consistent with incongruencies between PNAC's work model and A4R. These findings thus further support the empirical validity of the A4R.

Conclusion

The analysis of the fit between the PNAC and A4R points to refinements in all four conditions that could make the A4R a more precise evaluative framework. Concurrently, it highlights areas that the PNAC should improve to increase its legitimacy, such as incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses and including patient representatives in the decision-making process.

Hebrew and Arabic abstracts for this article are available as an additional file.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.

A multi-stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis for the reimbursement of orphan drugs (FinMHU-MCDA study)

Background

Patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is limited and varies between countries, reimbursement decisions on OMPs are complex, and there is a need for more transparent processes to know which criteria should be considered to inform these decisions. This study aimed to determine the most relevant criteria for the reimbursement of OMPs in Spain, from a multi-stakeholder perspective, and using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA).

Methods

An MCDA was developed in 3 phases and included 28 stakeholders closely related to the field of rare diseases (6 physicians, 5 hospital pharmacists, 7 health economists, 4 patient representatives and 6 members from national and regional health authorities). Initially [phase A], a bibliographic review was conducted to identify the potential reimbursement criteria. Then, a reduced advisory board (8 members) proposed, selected, and defined the final list of criteria that could be relevant for reimbursement. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) [phase B] was developed to determine the relevance and relative importance weight of such criteria according to the stakeholders’ preferences by choosing between pairs of hypothetical financing scenarios. A multinomial logit model was fitted to analyze the DCE responses. Finally [phase C], the advisory board review the results using a deliberative process.

Results

Thirteen criteria were selected, related to 4 dimensions: patient population, disease, treatment, and economic evaluation. Nine criteria were deemed relevant for decision-making and associated with a higher relative importance: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) (23.53%), treatment efficacy (14.64%), availability of treatment alternatives (13.51%), disease severity (12.62%), avoided costs (11.21%), age of target population (7.75%), safety (seriousness of adverse events) (4.72%), quality of evidence (3.82%) and size of target population (3.12%). The remaining criteria had a < 3% relative importance: economic burden of disease (2.50%), cost of treatment (1.73%), cost-effectiveness (0.83%) and safety (frequency of adverse events) (0.03%).

Conclusion

The reimbursement of OMPs in Spain should be determined by its effect on patient’s HRQL, the extent of its therapeutic benefit from efficacy and the availability of other therapeutic options. Furthermore, the severity of the rare disease should also influence the decision along with the potential of the treatment to avoid associated costs.

Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding

OBJECTIVES

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions.

METHODS

We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable).

RESULTS

Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces.

CONCLUSION

Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.