Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting: the relevance and roles of empirical studies exploring public values

How should scarce healthcare resources be distributed? This is a contentious issue that became especially pressing during the pandemic. It is often emphasised that studies exploring public views about this question provide valuable input to the issue of healthcare priority setting. While there has been a vast number of such studies it is rarely articulated, more specifically, what the results from these studies would mean for the justification of principles for priority setting. On the one hand, it seems unreasonable that public values would straightforwardly decide the ethical question of how resources should be distributed. On the other hand, in a democratic society, it seems equally unreasonable that they would be considered irrelevant for this question. In this paper we draw on the notion of reflective equilibrium and discuss the relevance and roles that empirical studies may plausibly have for justification in priority setting ethics. We develop a framework for analysing how different kinds of empirical results may have different kinds of implications for justification.

Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review

Background

In light of the limited availability of healthcare resources, providing universal access to healthcare is a challenging task. As a result, prioritizing healthcare services has emerged as a crucial issue. This study aims to explore the preferences of the public regarding healthcare prioritization for rare and common diseases. By examining public attitudes, this study seeks to inform government decisions concerning resource allocation and distribution within healthcare.

Methods

"Social preference" and "rare disease" were searched as MeSH terms in the electronic databases of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Econlit for articles published since their establishment, and the information on the characteristics of the articles and the results of social preferences for rare diseases were analyzed and summarized.

Results

The public held predominantly neutral views on the setting of healthcare priorities for rare and common diseases. The results of the included studies showed that with all else being equal, no social preference for rarity was found, but when the public considered the proportional advantage of rare diseases or when the respondents were young, a social preference for rarity existed. In addition, the public weighed attributes such as the health benefits of treatments, the effectiveness of treatment options, the safety of treatment, equity, unmet needs, and disease severity in the process of setting of treatment priorities for rare diseases. Furthermore, in consideration of equity, the public showed a willingness to pay for rare diseases in spite of the high medical costs.

Conclusion

International studies on social preferences provide some evidence for the setting of healthcare priorities for rare diseases, and health policymakers should consider social preferences in an integrated manner in order to set healthcare priorities appropriately.

The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

In this article, we focus on the reimbursement process, and as an example, characterize the time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of metastatic NSCLC from publicly available websites, in three different healthcare systems: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, and the National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel, all who have publicly funded health systems which include drug coverage. Our study found that there are substantial differences in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for the same conditions in different countries, with NICE and The National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel approving one condition at the same time, Israel approving two conditions earlier than NICE, and PBAC lagging behind for every condition. These differences could be due to the differences in health policy systems and the many factors that affect reimbursement. Comparing the reimbursement process between different countries can highlight the challenges facing their health systems in early adoption of new treatments.

Social values and health systems in health policy and systems research: a mixed-method systematic review and evidence map

Because health systems are conceptualized as social systems, embedded in social contexts and shaped by human agency, values are a key factor in health system change. As such, health systems software-including values, norms, ideas and relationships-is considered a foundational focus of the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). A substantive evidence-base exploring the influence of software factors on system functioning has developed but remains fragmented, with a lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical coherence. This is especially true for work on 'social values' within health systems-for which there is currently no substantive review available. This study reports on a systematic mixed-methods evidence mapping review on social values within HPSR. The study reaffirms the centrality of social values within HPSR and highlights significant evidence gaps. Research on social values in low- and middle-income country contexts is exceedingly rare (and mostly produced by authors in high-income countries), particularly within the limited body of empirical studies on the subject. In addition, few HPS researchers are drawing on available social science methodologies that would enable more in-depth empirical work on social values. This combination (over-representation of high-income country perspectives and little empirical work) suggests that the field of HPSR is at risk of developing theoretical foundations that are not supported by empirical evidence nor broadly generalizable. Strategies for future work on social values in HPSR are suggested, including: countering pervasive ideas about research hierarchies that prize positivist paradigms and systems hardware-focused studies as more rigorous and relevant to policy-makers; utilizing available social science theories and methodologies; conceptual development to build common framings of key concepts to guide future research, founded on quality empirical research from diverse contexts; and using empirical evidence to inform the development of operationalizable frameworks that will support rigorous future research on social values in health systems.

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background

Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.

Results

We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.

Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP's) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD's).

Sharing and the Provision of "Cost-Ineffective" Life-Extending Services to Less Severely Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility analysis prioritizes services using cost, life-years, and the health state utility of the life-years. Nevertheless, a significant body of evidence suggests that the public would prefer more variables to be considered in decision making and at least some sharing of the budget with services for severe conditions that are not cost-effective because of their high cost.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether this preference for sharing persists for less severe conditions when both cost effectiveness and illness severity would indicate that resources should be allocated to other services.

METHODS

Survey respondents were asked to divide a budget between two patients facing life-threatening illnesses. The severity of the illnesses differed and the price of treatment was varied.

RESULTS

Sharing occurred in all scenarios including scenarios in which the illness was less severe and services were not cost-effective. Results are consistent with behavior commonly observed in other contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that sharing per se is important and that the public would support some funding of cost-ineffective services for less severe health problems.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ONTARIO DECISION FRAMEWORK: A VALUES BASED FRAMEWORK FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Objectives:

In 2007, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) developed a decision framework to guide decision making around nondrug health technologies. In 2012, OHTAC commissioned a revision of this framework to enhance its usability and deepen its conceptual and theoretical foundations.

Methods:

The committee overseeing this work used several methods: (a) a priori consensus on guiding principles, (b) a scoping review of decision attributes and processes used globally in health technology assessment (HTA), (c) presentations by methods experts and members of review committees, and (d) committee deliberations over a period of 3 years.

Results:

The committee adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach, but rejected the formal use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Three broad categories of attributes were identified: (I) context criteria attributes included factors such as stakeholders, adoption pressures from neighboring jurisdictions, and potential conflicts of interest; (II) primary appraisal criteria attributes included (i) benefits and harms, (ii) economics, and (iii) patient-centered care; (III) feasibility criteria attributes included budget impact and organizational feasibility.

Conclusion:

The revised Ontario Decision Framework is similar in some respects to frameworks used in HTA worldwide. Its distinctive characteristics are that: it is based on an explicit set of social values; HTA paradigms (evidence based medicine, economics, and bioethics/social science) are used to aggregate decision attributes; and that it is rooted in a theoretical framework of optimal decision making, rather than one related to broad social goals, such as health or welfare maximization.

The importance of population differences: Influence of individual characteristics on the Australian public's preferences for emergency care

A better understanding of the public's preferences and what factors influence them is required if they are to be used to drive decision-making in health. This is particularly the case for service areas undergoing continual reform such as emergency and primary care. Accordingly, this study sought to determine if attitudes, socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare experiences influence the public's intentions to access care and their preferences for hypothetical emergency care alternatives. A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit the preferences of Australian adults (n=1529). Mixed logit regression analyses revealed the influence of a range of individual characteristics on preferences and service uptake choices across three different presenting scenarios. Age was associated with service uptake choices in all contexts, whilst the impact of other sociodemographics, health experience and attitudinal factors varied by context. The improvements in explanatory power observed from including these factors in the models highlight the need to further clarify their influence with larger populations and other presenting contexts, and to identify other determinants of preference heterogeneity. The results suggest social marketing programs undertaken as part of demand management efforts need to be better targeted if decision-makers are seeking to increase community acceptance of emerging service models and alternatives. Other implications for health policy, service planning and research, including for workforce planning and the possible introduction of a system of co-payments are discussed.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

Communal Sharing and the Provision of Low-Volume High-Cost Health Services: Results of a Survey

INTRODUCTION

This paper suggests and tests a reason why the public might support the funding of services for rare diseases (SRDs) when the services are effective but not cost effective, i.e. when more health could be produced by allocating funds to other services. It is postulated that the fairness of funding a service is influenced by a comparison of the average patient benefit with the average cost to those who share the cost.

METHODS

Survey respondents were asked to allocate a budget between cost-effective services that had a small effect upon a large number of relatively well patients and SRDs that benefited a small number of severely ill patients but were not cost effective because of their high cost.

RESULTS

Part of the budget was always allocated to the SRDs. The budget share rose with the number sharing the cost.

DISCUSSION

Sharing per se appears to characterise preferences. This has been obscured in studies that focus upon cost per patient rather than cost per person sharing the cost.

What will the crowd fund? Preferences of prospective donors for drug development fundraising campaigns

Biomedical researchers are increasingly turning to project-based online fundraising (i.e., crowdfunding) as a complementary source of research funding. To help inform the fundraising strategies adopted by researchers who take this approach, we conducted an online survey of prospective donors in North America. Respondents indicated not only an overwhelming preference for donating to projects conducted by nonprofit research organizations, but also an openness to donating to companies that have a 'for-benefit' corporate structure. They also showed a strong preference for projects that have alternate sources of funding, that have the potential to yield a curative therapy, and that focus on common and pediatric diseases.

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to health system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible and incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PREFERENCE INFORMATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION MAKING? A CASE STUDY OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the role of community preference information from discrete choice studies of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in health technology assessment (HTA) reports and subsequent policy decisions.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of discrete choice studies of CRC screening. Included studies were reviewed to assess the policy context of the research. For those studies that cited a recent or pending review of CRC screening, further searches were undertaken to determine the extent to which community preference information was incorporated into the HTA decision-making process.

RESULTS

Eight discrete choice studies that evaluated preferences for CRC screening were identified. Four of these studies referred to a national or local review of CRC screening in three countries: Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. Our review of subsequently released health policy documents showed that while consideration was given to community views on CRC, policy was not informed by discrete choice evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences and values of patients are increasingly being considered "evidence" to be incorporated into HTA reports. Discrete choice methodology is a rigorous quantitative method for eliciting preferences and while as a methodology it is growing in profile, it would appear that the results of such research are not being systematically translated or integrated into HTA reports. A formalized approach is needed to incorporate preference literature into the HTA decision-making process.

Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Much attention in recent years has been given to the topic of public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. HTA organizations spend substantial resources and time on undertaking public engagement, and numerous studies have examined challenges and barriers to engagement in the decision-making process however uncertainty remains as to optimal methods to incorporate the views of the public in HTA decision-making. Little research has been done to ascertain whether current engagement processes align with public preferences and to what extent their desire for engagement is dependent on the question being asked by decision-makers or the characteristics of the decision. This study will examine public preferences for engagement in Australian HTA decision-making using an exploratory mixed methods design.

METHODS/DESIGN

The aims of this study are to: 1) identify characteristics about HTA decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken on a particular topic, 2) determine which decision characteristics influence public preferences for the extent, or type of public engagement, and 3) describe reasons underpinning these preferences. Focus group participants from the general community, aged 18-70 years, will be purposively sampled from the Australian population to ensure a wide range of demographic groups. Each focus group will include a general discussion on public engagement as well as a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique (NGT). The NGT will inform the design of a discrete choice study to quantitatively assess public preferences for engagement in HTA decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The proposed research seeks to investigate under what circumstances and how the public would like their views and preferences to be considered in health technology assessments. HTA organizations regularly make decisions about when and how public engagement should occur but without consideration of the public's preferences on the method and extent of engagement. This information has the potential to assist decision-makers in tailoring engagement approaches, and may be particularly useful in decisions with potential for conflict where clarification of public values and preferences could strengthen the decision-making process.

A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting

BACKGROUND

There is current interest in incorporating weights based on public preferences for health and healthcare into priority-setting decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to explore the extent to which public preferences and trade-offs for priority-setting criteria have been quantified, and to describe the study contexts and preference elicitation methods employed.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in April 2013 to identify empirical studies eliciting the stated preferences of the public for the provision of healthcare in a priority-setting context. Studies are described in terms of (i) the stated preference approaches used, (ii) the priority-setting levels and contexts, and (iii) the criteria identified as important and their relative importance.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies applying 40 elicitation methods reported in 41 papers met the inclusion criteria. The discrete choice experiment method was most commonly applied (n = 18, 45.0 %), but other approaches, including contingent valuation and the person trade-off, were also used. Studies prioritised health systems (n = 4, 10.2 %), policies/programmes/services/interventions (n = 16, 41.0 %), or patient groups (n = 19, 48.7 %). Studies generally confirmed the importance of a wide range of process, non-health and patient-related characteristics in priority setting in selected contexts, alongside health outcomes. However, inconsistencies were observed for the relative importance of some prioritisation criteria, suggesting context and/or elicitation approach matter.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.

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.

Value-engineered translation for regenerative medicine: meeting the needs of health systems

Despite high expectations of economic returns, large investments in regenerative medicine technology have yet to materialize, partly due to a lack of proven business and investment models, regulatory hurdles, and a greater focus on cost-effectiveness for reimbursement decisions by payors. Adoption of new economic modeling methods will better link investment decisions to value-based criteria of health systems.

Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand

This article aims to illustrate and critically analyze the results from the 1-year experience of using health technology assessment (HTA) in the development of the Thai Universal Coverage health benefit package. We review the relevant documents and give a descriptive analysis of outcomes resulting from the development process in 2009-2010. Out of 30 topics nominated by stakeholders for prioritization, 12 were selected for further assessment. A total of five new interventions were recommended for inclusion in the benefit package based on value for money, budget impact, feasibility and equity reasons. Different stakeholders have diverse interests and capabilities to participate in the process. In conclusion, HTA is helpful for informing coverage decisions for health benefit packages because it enhances the legitimacy of policy decisions by increasing the transparency, inclusiveness and accountability of the process. There is room for improvement of the current use of HTA, including providing technical support for patient representatives and civic groups, better communication between health professionals, and focusing more on health promotion and disease prevention.

Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?

BACKGROUND

Interest in citizens' juries for eliciting the views of the public to inform coverage decisions on new health technologies has grown. However, evaluative information, particularly regarding their short- and/or longer-term impact on participants' views is limited. As citizens' juries can be resource intensive, such information is required to make 'evidence-based' decisions about their use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of citizens' juries on participants' preferences for the distribution of health care across populations over time.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Two citizens' juries, involving a different representative sample of the public, were held. Participants completed identical questionnaires before (T1), directly after (T2) and 6 weeks following the jury (T3). Questionnaires comprised rating, ranking and choice-based questions related to four characteristics of competing patient populations (age, current health, life expectancy without treatment and health gain resulting from an intervention). Semi-structured telephone interviews were also conducted to explore the impact of the jury on participants' distributive preferences. Changes in responses to the self-administered survey over the three time points were assessed quantitatively, while interview questions were analysed using qualitative techniques.

RESULTS

No significant differences in responses to rating questions were observed. Pre/post-jury changes in the rankings of two factors were statistically significant in one of the juries. However, in both juries, T1-T2 changes in responses to several of the choice-based questions reached statistical significance. The number was lower between T2 and T3, suggesting that jurors retained their views. According to findings from the interviews, jurors' views changed or were clarified through participation in the jury.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be evidence suggesting that the views of individuals who participate in citizens' juries change as a result of the experience, and those 'informed' views are sustained.