QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature

Quality- and productivity-adjusted life years: From QALYs to PALYs and beyond

We develop a unified framework for the measurement and valuation of health and productivity. Within this framework, we characterize evaluation functions allowing for compromises between the classical quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and its polar productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs). Our framework and characterization results provide a new normative basis for the economic evaluation of health care interventions, as well as occupational health and safety policies, aimed to impact both health and productivity of individuals.

Addressing the distributional consequences of spillovers in health economic evaluation: A prioritarian approach

Health spillovers arise when an individual's serious illness affects those close to them emotionally, psychologically, and/or physically. As a result, healthcare interventions that improve the lives of patients may also confer wider health benefits. However, contrary to widespread calls for health spillovers to be included in health economic evaluation, others have argued this could have adverse distributional consequences and equity implications. This paper presents a novel approach to spillover inclusion in health economic evaluation using a 'prioritarian transformation' of health gains that allows these equity concerns to be addressed. Affording greater weight to the incremental change in patient outcomes when incorporating carer/family health spillovers into resource allocation decisions, the method provides a feasible means of moderating the distributional impact of spillover inclusion. It also introduces a normative, theoretical perspective to a largely empirical extant literature and, as such, its axiomatic basis is examined. Finally, an illustrative example of the approach is presented to demonstrate its application.

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a dominant measurement of health gain in economic evaluations for pricing drugs. However, end-of-life (EoL) patients' preference for QALY gains in life expectancy (LE) and quality of life (QoL) during different disease stages remains unknown and is seldom involved in decision-making. This study aims to measure preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) towards different types of QALY gain among EoL cancer patients.

METHODS

We attributed QALY gain to four types, gain in LE and QoL, respectively, and during both progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival (PPS). A discrete choice experiment including five attributes (the four QALY attributes and one cost attribute) with three levels each was developed and conducted with 85 Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in 2022. All levels were set with QALY gain/cost synthesised from research on anti-lung cancer drugs recently listed by Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration. Each respondent answered six choice tasks in a face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Patients valued LE-related QALY gain in PFS most, with a relative importance of 81.8% and a WTP of $43,160 [95% CI 26,751 ~ 59,569] per QALY gain. Respondents consistently preferred LE-related to QoL-related QALY gain regardless of disease stage. Patients with higher income or lower education levels tended to pay more for QoL-related QALY gain.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a prioritised resource allocation to EoL-prolonging health technologies. Given the small sample size and large individual heterogeneity, a full-scale study is needed to provide more robust results.

Aversion to health inequality - Pure, income-related and income-caused

We design a novel experiment to identify aversion to pure (univariate) health inequality separately from aversion to income-related and income-caused health inequality. Participants allocate resources to determine health of individuals. Identification comes from random variation in resource productivity and information on income and its causal effect. We gather data (26,286 observations) from a sample of UK adults (n = 337) and estimate pooled and participant-specific social preferences while accounting for noise. The median person has strong aversion to pure health inequality, challenging the health maximisation objective of economic evaluation. Aversion to health inequality is even stronger when it is related to income. However, the median person prioritises health of poorer individuals less than is assumed in the standard measure of income-related health inequality. On average, aversion to that inequality does not become stronger when low income is known to cause ill-health. There is substantial heterogeneity in all three types of inequality aversion.

Preferences as fairness judgments: a critical review of normative frameworks of preference elicitation and development of an alternative based on constitutional economics

Preference elicitation is widely used within health economic evaluations to inform coverage decisions. However, coverage decisions involve questions of social justice and it is unclear what role empirical evidence about preferences can play here. This study reviews the prevalent normative frameworks for using population-based preference elicitation and the criticisms they face, and proposes an alternative based on constitutional economics. The frameworks reviewed include a supposedly value-neutral framework of preferences as predictors of choice, preference utilitarian frameworks that aim to maximize preference satisfaction, and substantive consequentialist frameworks that aim to maximize happiness, health, or capabilities. The proposed alternative implements the idea that indices of social value are tools for conflict resolution, rather than tools for maximization. Preference elicitation is used for validating values generated by multi-criteria decision analysis results within representative processes of stakeholder deliberation.

Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19

Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople's propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.

Distributionally sensitive measurement and valuation of population health

We introduce a measure of population health that is sensitive to inequality in both age-specific health and lifespan and can be calculated from a health-extended period life table. By allowing for inequality aversion, the measure generalises health-adjusted life expectancy without requiring more data. A transformation of change in the (life-years) measure gives a distributionally sensitive monetary valuation of change in population health and disease burden. Application to Sub-Saharan Africa between 1990 and 2019 reveals that the change in population health is sensitive to allowing for lifespan inequality but is less sensitive to age-specific health inequality. Allowing for distributional sensitivity changes relative burdens of diseases, reduces convergence between the burdens of communicable and non-communicable diseases, and so could influence disease prioritisation. It increases the value of health improvements relative to GDP.

Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES

Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children.

METHODS

We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO.

RESULTS

There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Non-health Outcomes: A Person Trade-Off Study in the Context of Genomics

PURPOSE

Economic evaluations of health technologies traditionally aim to maximize population health outcomes measured by using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Non-health outcomes, however, may have high social value, and their exclusion has the potential to bias decisions regarding allocation of health care resources. This research positions Australian participants as societal decision-makers to explore their willingness to trade-off health gains in adults for non-health benefits in families with a child affected by a rare disease.

METHODS

To estimate the social value of the different health care interventions, a person trade-off (PTO) method was used. PTOs present participants with groups of beneficiaries that vary in terms of the number of individuals who will benefit, the individuals' characteristics, their expected benefits, or a combination, and ask which group should be prioritized. Each trade-off presented health gains from the treatment of moderate physical and mental health conditions described by the 3-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) health states. The health gains in these groups were traded-off against non-health gains in families accessing diagnostic genomic testing, and equivalence values were calculated, using median and ratio of means methods, based on the ratio of the group sizes at the point of equivalence. Participants were recruited through Prolific and were stratified according to age, sex, and education. The impact of participant characteristics on equivalence values was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests and ordinary least-squares log-linear regressions.

FINDINGS

Participants (N = 434) positioned as societal decision-makers were generally willing to trade-off adult health gains with the familial non-health benefits of genomic testing, showing a preference for valuing both types of outcomes within public health policy. The aggregation of preferences generated 2 weightings for genomic testing against each health treatment, an unadjusted value and a reweighted value to match target demographic characteristics. Converted into QALY value per test, it was found that participants valued the non-health benefits of genomic testing between 0.730 and 0.756 QALY. A minority of participants always prioritized diagnostic genomic testing over the physical (6.0%) or mental (4.6%) health treatments, with a larger minority always prioritizing the physical (15.4%) or mental (14.8%) health treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicate that participants perceived the non-health parental benefits in children experiencing rare disease to have comparable value to health gains in adults experiencing the moderate physical or mental health conditions described using EQ-5D-3L. These findings suggest that the benefits of genomic tests would be underestimated if only health benefits are included in economic evaluations.

Eliciting Trade-Offs Between Equity and Efficiency: A Methodological Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To identify differences in the approaches and results of studies that elicit equity-efficiency trade-offs that can inform equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis for healthcare resource allocation.

METHODS

We searched Ovid (Medline), EconLit, and Scopus prior to June 25, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (1) peer-reviewed or (2) gray literature; (3) published in English; (4) survey-based; (5) parameterized a social welfare function to quantify inequality aversion or (6) elicited a trade-off in equity and efficiency characteristics of health interventions. Exclusion criteria were: (1) studies that did not conduct a trade-off or (2) theoretical studies. We abstracted details on study methods, results, and limitations. Studies were grouped by following approach: (1) social welfare function or (2) preference ranking and distributional weighting. We described findings separately for each approach category.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven papers were included, 28 parameterized social welfare functions and 49 were classified as preference ranking and distributional weighting. Study methods were heterogeneous. Studies were conducted across 29 countries. Sample sizes and composition, survey methods and question framing varied. Preferences for equity were mixed. Across both approach categories: 39 studies were classified as clear evidence of inequality aversion; 33 found mixed evidence; and 4 had no evidence of aversion. Evidence of between and within-study heterogeneity was found. Preferences for equity may differ by gender, profession, political ideology, income, and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variability in study methods limit the direct comparability of findings and their use in equity-informed cost-effectiveness analysis. Future researches using representative samples that explore within and between country heterogeneity is needed.

Decomposing social risk preferences for health and wealth

This study reports the results of the first artefactual field experiment designed to measure the prevalence of aversion toward different components of social risks in a large and demographically representative sample. We identify social risk preferences for health and wealth for losses and gains, and decompose these attitudes into four different dimensions: individual risk, collective risk, ex-post inequality, and ex-ante inequality. The results of a non-parametric analysis suggest that aversion to risk and inequality is the mean preference for outcomes in health and wealth in the domain of gains and losses. A parametric decomposition of aversion to risk and inequality shows that respondents are averse to ex-post and ex-ante inequality in health and wealth for gains and losses. Likewise, respondents are averse to collective risk, but neutral to individual risk, which highlights the importance of considering different components of social risk preferences when managing social health and wealth risks.

Real-world disparities and ethical considerations with access to CFTR modulator drugs: Mind the gap!

The third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, has particular relevance and implementation challenges amongst people living with rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis (CF). Although the treatment and projected outcome of CF has significantly improved with the advent of CF transmembrane conductance regulator protein modulator (CFTRm) therapy, there remains significant global inequality with regards to access to these life-saving and life-altering drugs. Elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ETI) triple combination therapy, first licensed in the United States in 2019, has rapidly become the standard of care for children aged 6 years and older in most high-income countries for individuals with CFTR variants responsive to ETI. Negotiated agreements for access to ETI are currently in place in North America,Europe, Israel ,Australia and New Zealand. However, less priority has been given to negotiate agreements for access to CFTRm in low-middle income countries(LMIC) with significant CF populations such as Central and South America, India, the Middle East, and Southern Africa. These countries and individuals living with CF are therefore effectively being left behind, in direct conflict with the stated principle of the 2030 SDGs. In this review, we highlight the current global inequity in access to CFTRm drugs and its impact on widening disparities between high-income countries and LMIC in CF outcomes and survival. We further discuss the reasons for this inequity and explore the ethical- and human rights-based principles and dilemmas that clinicians, families, governments, and healthcare funders must consider when prioritizing fair and affordable access to expensive CFTRm drugs. Lastly, we propose possible solutions to overcoming the barriers to accessing affordable CFTRm drugs in LMIC and illustrate with examples how access to drug therapies for other conditions have been successfully negotiated in LMIC through innovative partnerships between governments and pharmaceutical industries.

Reference-dependent age weighting of quality-adjusted life years

People do not only care about maximizing health gains but also about their distribution. For example, they give more weight to younger patients than older patients. This pilot study aims to investigate if age weighting is reinforced by loss aversion if young people are falling behind one's perceived 'normal' quality of life (QoL), while older people do not. We apply a person trade-off method in a large representative sample (n = 990) to estimate age weighting factors. We also measure QoL levels that individuals regard as 'normal' for different ages, serving as reference points. We observe a considerable amount of age weighting, with 20-year-old patients on average receiving 1.7 times as much weight as 80-year-old patients. Perceived 'normal' QoL rapidly decreases with age of a patient. Older people are more optimistic about what constitutes 'normal QoL' than younger people, but they express a faster decline in normal QoL due to aging. Respondents who view all improvements to be gain enlarging show the least age weighting, but loss aversion cannot explain the results. Still, one's age-related reference level is an important predictor of age weights. Given the explorative nature of this study, further studies are called for to generate more robust evidence.

The Role of Perceived Utility of Full Health in Age Weighting

OBJECTIVES

People often give different weights to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by different socioeconomic groups. It is well known that QALY gains of younger patients generally get more weight than the same QALY gains accruing to older patients. This study aims to separate these age-related preferences into "pure age weighting" and age weighting caused by full health not perceived as being the same for the old as for the young.

METHODS

We apply a person trade-off method in a large sample representative (N = 500) of the Dutch general adult population to estimate age weighting factors. We describe health as a percentage of what is considered full health for a given age, for which we obtain a proxy in a separate task.

RESULTS

A high amount of age weighting is observed, with QALYs to 20-year-old patients receiving approximately 1.5 times as much weight as QALYs to 80-year-old patients. At the same time, we see that individuals do not perceive full health to be the same for young and older people. In fact, the age weighting disappears once we control for these differences in full health perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents had strong preferences for the young relative to the old, but these preferences were related to full health perceptions, that is, more weight being assigned to younger because full health is at a higher absolute level for them than for the old.

Should We Consider Including a Value for "Hope" as an Additional Benefit Within Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) typically uses average health-related quality of life gain as its main measure of benefit used in economic evaluation. Nevertheless, there have been calls to consider novel aspects of benefit including the "value of hope," defined as a patients' potential preferences for a wider distribution of treatment benefit with a positive skew, in the hope that they will be one of the lucky ones. The value of hope may also derive from feeling hopeful as a positive mental state, which may be missing from current measures of health-related quality of life. The value attributed to feeling hopeful could be related to, or additional to, the value derived from possible risk-seeking preferences. Here, we reflect upon the strength of the case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" taking a critical look at the commonly referenced evidence for including the "value of hope" as risk-seeking preferences. We also draw attention to other conceptions of hope-as an emotion, a cognitive process, or a combination of both-and reflect upon the potential of including these broader notions of hope into HTA. The case for the inclusion of the "value of hope" based on risk-seeking preferences is weak. We suggest research questions that could give further evidence on whether hope is an important missing value from HTA.

What public health interventions do people in Canada prefer to fund? A discrete choice experiment

Objective

To assess public support of tailored and targeted public health interventions for marginalized communities.

Methods

We conducted a discrete choice experiment using a web-based survey advertised to Facebook and Instagram users living in Canada, aged > 16. Participants were asked to choose between funding two hypothetical public health programs. Each program was described by its purpose; expected increase in life expectancy; and target audience. Demographically weighted generalized linear mixed-effects models were constructed to identify program factors associated with program selection.

Results

Participants completed up to 8 discrete choice comparison exercises each resulting in 23,889 exercises were completed by 3054 participants. Selected programs were less likely to focus on prevention (vs. treatment). For each 1-year increase in the marginal years of life gained, there was a 15% increase in the odds of a program being selected. Interventions tailored to marginalized communities or targeting stigmatized health conditions were less likely to be selected compared to interventions targeted to the general population or targeting chronic health conditions. Noteworthy exceptions included an increased preference for interventions aligning with the perceived needs or cultural expectations for marginalized communities.

Conclusions

Stigmatizing perceptions of health conditions and key populations likely influence public health programming preferences of Canadians.

Public health implications

Informational campaigns highlighting disparities experienced by marginalized populations may improve support for targeted and tailored interventions.

Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) play a particularly important role in the reimbursement decisions of health technologies in countries with limited healthcare resources. Our goal is to develop a scientifically solid proposal for a revised cost-effectiveness threshold, as part of the planned review of the Hungarian health economic guidance.

METHODS

The Threshold Working Group of the Hungarian Health Economics Association performed a targeted review on CETs in European countries. International trends on CETs served as a basis for our recommendation, which was discussed at the Association's workshop and deliberated at an expert committee meeting with representatives from the national health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare payer bodies, and academic HTA centres.

RESULTS

The current Hungarian CET is one of the highest among European countries relative to GDP per capita, and even higher in nominal value than the CET applied by NICE. As opposed to the current, single Hungarian threshold, other European countries apply multiple thresholds. The Working Group recommends that Hungary should also apply multiple CETs in the range of 1.5-3 times GDP per capita with stratification according to the relative quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the new technology. In addition, multiple CETs in the range of 3-10 times GDP per capita is recommended for technologies in rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

CETs should be aligned with the country's economic performance and should reflect societal preferences. Our recommendation may increase the efficiency of healthcare resource allocation in Hungary by strengthening the role of HTA in the reimbursement decisions and favouring new technologies with higher QALY gain.

Immediate birth for women between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation with prolonged preterm prelabour rupture of membranes and detection of vaginal or urine group B streptococcus: an economic evaluation

Objective

What are the costs, benefits and harms of immediate birth compared with expectant management in women with prolonged preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) at 34⁺⁰–36⁺⁶ weeks of gestation and detection of vaginal or urine group B streptococcus (GBS)?

Design

Mathematical decision model comprising three independent decision trees.

Setting

UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective.

Population

Women testing positive for GBS with PPROM at 34⁺⁰–36⁺⁶ weeks of gestation.

Methods

The model estimates lifetime costs and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) using evidence from randomised trials, UK NHS data sources and further observational studies. Simulated events include neonatal infections, morbidity associated with preterm birth and consequences of caesarean birth. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed.

Main outcome measures

QALYs, costs and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

In this population, immediate birth dominates expectant management: it is more effective (average lifetime QALYs, 24.705 versus 24.371) and it is cheaper (average lifetime costs, £14,372 versus £19,311). In one‐way sensitivity analysis, results are robust to all but the odds ratio estimating the relative effect on incidence of infections. Threshold analysis shows that the odds of infection only need to be >1.5% with expectant management for the benefit of avoiding infections to outweigh the disadvantages of immediate birth. In PSA, immediate birth is the preferred option in >80% of simulations.

Conclusions

Neonatal GBS infections are expensive to treat and may result in substantial adverse health consequences. Therefore, immediate birth, which is associated with a reduced risk of neonatal infection compared with expectant management, is expected to generate better health outcomes and decreased lifetime costs.

Tweetable abstract

For women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes and group B streptococcus in vaginal or urine samples, immediate birth is associated with improved health in their babies and reduced costs, compared with expectant management.

For women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes and group B streptococcus in vaginal or urine samples, immediate birth is associated with improved health in their babies and reduced costs, compared with expectant management.

Should rare diseases get special treatment?

Orphan drug policy often gives 'special treatment' to rare diseases, by giving additional priority or making exceptions to specific drugs, based on the rarity of the conditions they aim to treat. This essay argues that the goal of orphan drug policy should be to make prevalence irrelevant to funding decisions. It aims to demonstrate that it is severity, not prevalence, which drives our judgments that important claims are being overlooked when treatments for severe rare diseases are not funded. It shows that prioritising severity avoids problems caused by prioritising rarity, and that it is compatible with a range of normative frameworks. The implications of a severity-based view for drug development are then derived. The severity-based view also accounts for what is wrong with how the current system of drug development unfairly neglects common diseases that burden the developing world. Lastly, the implications of a severity-based view for current orphan drug policies are discussed.

Real-world impact of disease on functioning and activity: what is missed when using general instruments to estimate quality-adjusted life years

OBJECTIVE

Economic evaluations conducted to inform healthcare resource allocation often rely on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure therapeutic benefit. However, QALYs, with underlying health utilities estimated using the EQ-5D or SF-36, may fail to capture the impact of disease for all patients. How well-being and heath utility differ across several common conditions was explored.

METHODS

This study examined eight diseases: arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease and stroke. Health utilities for each disease were obtained from published literature. Other measures of disease burden, including physical functioning, cognitive functioning and physical activity, were estimated from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Group rankings by these measures were compared to rankings by health utility.

RESULTS

Health utilities were lowest for patients with depression (0.44), and highest for those with cancer (0.81). Physical functioning was most limited (higher score) among those with stroke (28.2) and had the least impact for cancer (24.4). Physical activity was most impacted by heart disease (27.3) and least impacted by depression (40.7). Cognitive functioning was lowest in stroke (41.6) and highest in asthma (52.0).

CONCLUSION

Differences in rankings of disease severity by metric indicate that the results of cost-utility analyses might be biased against treatments for certain diseases. As patient preferences for clinical outcomes vary, the full burden of disease should be considered in evaluations. Restricting access to treatments based on an incomplete estimate of burden could lead to misallocation of resources and a withholding of therapies that patients find valuable.

What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments

The act of suicide is commonly viewed as wrong in some sense, but it is not clear why this is. Based on past empirical research and philosophical theorizing, we test ten different explanations for why suicide is opposed on normative grounds. Using a within-subjects design, Study 1 showed that seven out of ten manipulations had significant effects on normative judgments of suicide: time left to live, lack of close social relationships, a history of prior immoral behavior, the manner in which the suicide is committed, painful, incurable medical issues, impulsive decision-making, and the actor’s own moral-religious background. However, in all cases, the act of suicide was still considered wrong, overall. Using a between-subjects design, Study 2 tested the combined effect of the seven significant manipulations from Study 1. In combination, the seven manipulations eliminated opposition to suicide, on average. Implications for moral psychology and suicide prevention are discussed.

Evaluating Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay [DCE-WTP] analysis, and Relative Social Willingness to Pay [RS-WTP] analysis in a Health Technology Assessment of a treatment for an ultra-rare childhood disease [CLN2]

BACKGROUND

: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ("social") perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified.

RESULTS

DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques illustrated substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

The application of the QALY measure in the assessment of the effects of health interventions on an older population: a systematic scoping review

Background

One of the most commonly used types of evaluation methods is cost-utility analysis (CUA), using the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) indicator as a preference-based measure for assessing effects of a given programme. Such assessments are often translated into health-care provision priorities; therefore, effectively choosing the method of outcome evaluation is crucial for ensuring the best possible allocation of scarce resources. The main objective of this scoping review is to identify what kinds of problems and limitations may occur when the QALY indicator is used to assess the effects of health interventions in the older population.

Methods

To identify literature in a scoping review, the databases MEDLINE via PubMed and Scopus were searched. A manual search on relevant organizations’ and associations’ websites was also conducted (EUnetHTA, ISPOR and national governmental agencies responsible for allocation decisions). No limits concerning publication dates were set. All relevant data were extracted and analyzed, then a narrative summary was prepared.

Results

The database search identified 10,832 relevant items, finally 32 studies were included in the analysis. The main types of issues indicated in the studies were as follows: (1) lower life expectancy in the older population causes lower QALY gains; (2) an equal value of one QALY is used regardless of age; (3) poorer average health state causes lower QALY gains; (4) inadequate instruments to measure quality of life (QoL); (5) attributes of QoL used regardless of age; and (6) no beyond-health QoL aspects taken into account.

Conclusions

This review shows clearly that many problems of different types are connected with using QALY for the older population, but there is no consensus as to whether QALY discriminates against the older population or not – an opinion regarding this issue depends strongly on accepted principles, particularly the approach to equity and how one understands fairness. Health care resources should not be allocated solely on the basis of the health maximization rule because this can lead to discrimination against certain groups (e.g., older, disabled, and/or chronically ill people). To maintain the balance between efficiency and equity, the issues connected with age-based rationing should be widely discussed.

Public and decision-maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions in Iran: an application of the discrete choice experiment

Background

The argument about funding criteria poses challenges for health decision-makers in all countries. This study aimed to investigate the public and decision-maker preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions in Iran.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used for eliciting the preferences of the public and decision-makers. Four attributes including health gain after treatment, the severity of the disease, prevalence of the disease, and monthly out of pocket and relevant levels were designed in the form of hypothetical scenarios. The analysis was done by using conditional logit analysis.

Results

The results show all of four attributes are important for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions. But a medicine that improves health gain after treatment is more likely to be a choice in subsidy decisions (by relative importance of 28% for public and 42% for decision-makers). Out of pocket, severity, and prevalence of disease subsequently influence the preferences of the public and decision-makers, respectively. The greatest difference is observed in changing the health gain after treatment and out of pocket levels, between public and decision-makers.

Conclusion

This research reveals that the public is willing and able to provide preferences to inform policymakers for pharmaceutical decision-making; it also sets grounds for further studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00365-0.

Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients

OBJECTIVES

Decision-making frameworks that draw on economic evaluations increasingly use equity weights to facilitate a more equitable and fair allocation of healthcare resources. These weights can be attached to health gains or reflected in the monetary threshold against which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (new) health technologies are evaluated. Currently applied weights are based on different definitions of disease severity and do not account for age-related preferences in society. However, age has been shown to be an important equity-relevant characteristic. This study examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related quality of life (QOL) gains in relation to the disease severity and age of patients, and the outcome of the disease.

METHODS

We obtained WTP estimates by applying contingent-valuation tasks in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (n = 2023). We applied random-effects generalized least squares regression models to estimate the effect of patients' disease severity and age, size of QOL gains, disease outcome (full recovery/death 1 year after falling ill), and respondent characteristics on the WTP.

RESULTS

Respondents' WTP was higher for more severely ill and younger patients and for larger-sized QOL gains, but lower for patients who died. However, the relations were nonlinear and context dependent. Respondents with a lower age, who were male, had a higher household income, and a higher QOL stated a higher WTP for QOL gains.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that-if the aim is to align resource-allocation decisions in healthcare with societal preferences-currently applied equity weights do not suffice.

Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study

BACKGROUND

Deciding on pharmaceutical subsidy is regarded as a challenging issue for healthcare policymakers in Iran in most times. Public preferences, rarely attended in Iran, could be invaluable for including a particular drug in the list of subsidized medications.

OBJECTIVES

The current study aims to elicit the public preferences to develop an evidence-based decision-making framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies in Iran.

METHODS

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was employed to elicit the public preferences. Around 34 attributes were identified based on the systematic review and interview with 51 experts. By holding an expert panel, 7 attributes were finalized, namely: the survival after treatment, quality of life after treatment (QoL), alternative treatment, age group of the target population, cost burden for the government, disease severity, and drug manufacturer country. Next, 1224 households were selected for the survey in the city of Tehran, using random cluster sampling. Data were analyzed using conditional logit model.

RESULTS

The survival after treatment (β = 1.245; SE = 0.053) and disease severity (β =- 0.143; SE = 0.043) had the highest and lowest priority, respectively, in the preferences for allocating subsidy to a drug. In developed region, unlike the other two regions, the level of domestic drug production (β =- 0.302; SE = 0.073) was inversely associated with preferences toward allocating subsidy to a drug. In contrast to other districts, those living in district number one (β = 2.053; SE = 0.138) gave the highest value to promoting the QoL after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that policymakers pay more attention to attributes such as effectiveness and alternative treatment when developing an evidence-based framework for entering a drug into the list of subsidies. This study highlighted the public belief in the government's subsidy for medicines, provided that, this results in an increased survival and QoL.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

A systematic review and meta-regression of studies eliciting willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year in the general population

OBJECTIVES

From the demand-side perspective, the monetary value of one additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is estimated as willingness-to-pay per QALY (WTPQ). This study aims to summarize the methods and contexts of elicitation of willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life year (WTPQ) in the general population and to investigate the heterogeneity of WTPQ estimates.

METHODS

Meta-regression analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken by replacing the lowest and highest 5% and 2.5% of WTPQ by percentiles.

RESULTS

33 studies with 102 WTPQ estimates were included. The overall mean and median WTPQ estimates are $1,280,002 and $44,072, respectively. The meta-regressions demonstrated that types of health gain (quality of life or life length) and certainty of health outcomes are statistically significant factors. Furthermore, compared with online interviews, face-to-face interviews tend to yield lower WTPQ. Moreover, the declining trend of QALY gains and positive effect with statistical significance of the sample age were also noticed.

CONCLUSION

For valid and representative values of WTPQ, future researchers should therefore take into consideration various scenarios and investigate both health gain with certainty and uncertainty, health gain from both life length and quality of life, and different size of QALY gains.

The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4].Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.

Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening

In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters: prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.

Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime

The social value of risk reduction (SVRR) is the marginal social value of reducing an individual's fatality risk, as measured by some social welfare function (SWF). This Article investigates SVRR, using a lifetime utility model in which individuals are differentiated by age, lifetime income profile, and lifetime risk profile. We consider both the utilitarian SWF and a "prioritarian" SWF, which applies a strictly increasing and strictly concave transformation to individual utility. We show that the prioritarian SVRR provides a rigorous basis in economic theory for the "fair innings" concept, proposed in the public health literature: as between an older individual and a similarly situated younger individual (one with the same income and risk profile), a risk reduction for the younger individual is accorded greater social weight even if the gains to expected lifetime utility are equal. The comparative statics of prioritarian and utilitarian SVRRs with respect to age, and to (past, present, and future) income and baseline survival probability, are significantly different from the conventional value per statistical life (VSL). Our empirical simulation based upon the U.S. population survival curve and income distribution shows that prioritarian SVRRs with a moderate degree of concavity in the transformation function conform to widely held views regarding lifesaving policies: the young should take priority but income should make no difference.

Examining Equity Effects of Health Interventions in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to catalogue and describe published applications of equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs).

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline for English-language, peer-reviewed CEAs published on or before August 2019. We included CEAs that evaluated 2 or more alternatives; explicitly mentioned equity as a consideration or decision-making principle; and applied an equity-informative CEA method to analyze or examine at least 1 equity criterion in an applied CEA. We extracted data on selected characteristics and analyzed reporting quality using the CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles identified through a search and bibliography reviews met the inclusion criteria. All articles were published on or after 2010, with 80% published after 2015. Most studies evaluated primary prevention interventions in disease areas such as cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Equity impact analysis alone was the most common equity-informative CEA (56%), followed by equity impact analysis with financial protection effects (30%). At least 11 different equity criteria have been used in equity-informative CEAs; socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were used most frequently. Seventy-eight percent of studies reported finding "greater value" in an intervention after examining its distributional effects.

CONCLUSION

The number of equity-informative CEAs is increasing, and the wide range of equity criteria, diseases, interventions, settings, and populations represented suggests that broad application of these methods is feasible but will require further refinement. Inclusion of equity into CEAs may shift the value of evaluated interventions and can provide crucial additional information for decision makers.

Integrating Alternative Social Value Judgments Into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vaccines: An Application to Varicella-Zoster Virus Vaccination

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are based on the value judgment that health outcomes (eg, quantified in quality-adjusted life-years; QALYs) are all equally valuable irrespective of their context. Whereas most published CEAs perform extensive sensitivity analysis on various parameters and assumptions, only rarely is the influence of the QALY-equivalence assumption on cost-effectiveness results investigated. We illustrate how the integration of alternative social value judgments in CEA can be a useful form of sensitivity analysis.

METHODS

Because varicella-zoster virus (VZV) vaccination affects 2 distinct diseases (varicella zoster and herpes zoster) and likely redistributes infections across different age groups, the program has an important equity dimension. We used a cost-effectiveness model and disentangled the share of direct protection and herd immunity within the total projected QALYs resulting from a 50-year childhood VZV program in the UK. We use the UK population's preferences for QALYs in the vaccine context to revalue QALYs accordingly.

RESULTS

Revaluing different types of QALYs for different age groups in line with public preferences leads to a 98% change in the projected net impact of the program. The QALYs gained among children through direct varicella protection become more important, whereas the QALYs lost indirectly through zoster in adults diminish in value. Weighting of vaccine-related side effects made a large difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that a sensitivity analysis in which alternative social value judgments about the value of health outcomes are integrated into CEA of vaccines is relatively straightforward and provides important additional information for decision makers to interpret cost-effectiveness results.

Social tariffs and democratic choice-Do population-based health state values reflect the will of the people?

In economic evaluations of health technologies, health outcomes are commonly measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALYs are the product of time and health-related quality of life. Health-related quality of life, in turn, is determined by a social tariff, which is supposed to reflect the public's preference over health states. This study argues that, because of the tariff's role in the societal decision-making process, it should not be understood as merely an operational (statistical) definition of health, but as a major instrument of democratic participation. I outline what implications this might have for both the method used to aggregate individual preferences, and the set of individuals whose preferences should count. Alternative tariff specifications and decision rules are explored, and future research directions are proposed.

Are the group-based interventions improving the functional exercise capacity and quality of life of frail subjects with chronic heart failure?

Objectives:

Frail subjects with chronic heart failure (CHF) often demonstrate limited tolerance of exertion, shortness of breath, and reduced walking capacity resulting poor quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to quantify the improvements in functional exercise capacity (FEC) and QoL among Bulgarian frail subjects with CHF performed group-based high-intensity aerobic interval training (HIAIT)/m-Ullevaal intervention and to compare it with moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty (n=120) frail subjects with mean age of 63.73±6.68 years, in CHF and NYHA class II-IIIB, were enrolled in the single-center, prospective, two-arm randomized controlled clinical trial conducted at the Medical Center for Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine-I-Plovdiv. The baseline assessment included 6-minute walk test (6ΜWT), peak oxygen uptake (VO_2peak), modified Borg Perceived Exertion Scale (mBPES), and Minnesota living with the Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ).

Results:

The improvement in 6MWT (P<0.001), VO_2peak (P<0.001), mBPES (P<0.001), and MLHFQ (P<0.001) observed among frail subjects performed HIAIT/m-Ullevaal intervention was significantly greater compared to the improvement observed in the subjects performed MICT protocol (P<0.001).

Conclusions:

The group-based HIAIT/m-Ullevaal intervention is a new perspective and challenge for both, Bulgarian cardiac rehabilitation (CR), and frail patients with CHF.

COVID-19 and the ethics of quarantine: a lesson from the Eyam plague

The recent outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is posing many different challenges to local communities, directly affected by the pandemic, and to the global community, trying to find how to respond to this threat in a larger scale. The history of the Eyam Plague, read in light of Ross Upshur's Four Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention, and of the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, could provide useful guidance in navigating the complex ethical issues that arise when quarantine measures need to be put in place.

Alternative Approaches to Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Estimation Within Standard Cost-Effectiveness Models: Literature Review, Feasibility Assessment, and Impact Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has been long debated, but alternative estimation approaches have not been comprehensively evaluated. Our objective was to identify alternatives, characterize them by implementation feasibility, and evaluate the impact of implementing feasible options in cost-effectiveness models developed for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review combining keywords relating to QALYs, methodology alternatives, and cost-effectiveness in PubMed, EconLit, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Articles that discussed alternatives to the conventional QALY were included. Alternatives were characterized by type, data availability, calculation burden, and overall implementation feasibility. The subset of feasible alternatives, that is, sufficient data and methodology compatible with incorporation into common modeling approaches, were evaluated according to impact on incremental QALYs, incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB), intervention rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB.

RESULTS

We identified 28 articles discussing 9 alternatives. Feasible alternatives were using patient preference (PP) data; equity weighting according to baseline utility, fair innings, or proportional QALY shortfall; and the equal value of life-years-gained approach. All alternatives affected the incremental QALY and iNMB outcomes, rankings, and proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB. The PP alternative had the largest and most consistent impact. The PP impact on the proportion of interventions with a positive iNMB, was in the negative direction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work is the first comprehensive evaluation of proposed alternatives to the conventional QALY. We found robust literature but few options that were feasible to be implemented in current healthcare decision-making processes.

Pediatric Vaccines and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: How Much is Too Much to Pay for Prevention?

Cost-effectiveness evaluations play an important role in recommendations for use of pediatric vaccines that are set forth by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The fact that these evaluations are undertaken and accorded weight suggests that a critical value for designating pediatric vaccines as cost-effective (or not) must exist. For recommended pediatric vaccines, however, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have varied greatly, and there does not appear to be an explicit threshold used by the ACIP to define how much is too much to pay for the prevention of communicable diseases in children. Further complicating this issue is the fact that conventional ICER thresholds—expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained—accord value only to length and quality of life and may not reflect our preferences as individuals or a society. For example, risk, an important attribute of many healthcare decisions, is ignored by the QALY model, as is the distribution of health benefits across different members of society. Are we indeed indifferent about risk and do we really believe that the value of disease prevention in children should be measured by the same “yardstick” as that for older adults? Accordingly, do we really believe that “a QALY is a QALY”? These issues, which are reviewed and discussed in this article, are more than just of theoretical interest; the answers impact how public health policy is determined, which impacts the lives and well-being of entire populations as well as the budgets of payers.

Who should be given priority for public funding?

BACKGROUND

This study explored if Koreans consider the type of disease, rarity, and availability of alternative treatments as priority criteria in limited healthcare resource allocation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted with a representative sample of 3,482 Korean adults. Participants were divided into six cohorts, differing in terms of the disease being compared and the cost and benefits of the treatments. Each cohort was asked two questions: 1) How to allocate a fixed budget into each of the two groups (cancer vs non-cancer, rare vs common, no other treatments available vs several treatments available), all else being equal; 2) allocation choices when conditions of two groups differed. The McNemar test was used to assess changes in responses between the two questions.

RESULTS

Under the control condition, the majority chose to treat an even number of patients with cancer and non-cancer diseases, and preferred to treat common diseases and those with no alternative treatments. However, when the treatment effects or costs of two comparison groups changed, choice shifted toward more effective or less costly treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While Koreans generally support the principle of health maximization, they also believe that priority should be given to diseases that previously did not have any treatments. However, no priority was given to cancer or rare diseases.

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey

OBJECTIVE

Preferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children.

METHODS

We conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Intervention group participants were randomized to a moral reasoning exercise prior to each choice task. The main outcomes were the differences in mean preference scores by group, scenario, and demographics.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate a consistent preference by participants to allocate scarce health system resources to children. Exposure to the moral reasoning exercise weakened but did not eliminate this preference. Younger respondent age and parenthood were associated with greater preference for children. The top principles guiding participants' allocative decisions were treat equally, relieve suffering, and rescue those at risk of dying.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study affirms the relevance of age in public preferences for the allocation of scarce health care resources, demonstrating a significant preference by participants to allocate healthcare resources to children. However, this preference diminishes when challenged by exposure to a range of moral principles, revealing a strong public endorsement of equality of access. Definitions of value in healthcare based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness may exclude moral considerations that the public values, such as equality and humanitarianism, highlighting opportunities to enrich healthcare priority-setting through public engagement.

Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US

As cancer drug prices rise, it remains unclear whether the cost of new interventions is related to their beneficial impact for patients at a societal-level. Using data for 2003-2015 from the IQVIA MIDAS® dataset, the relationship between cancer drug costs and drug clinical benefits was studied in four countries with different approaches to drug pricing. Summary measures of drug clinical effects on overall survival, quality of life, and safety were obtained from a review of health technology assessments. Mean total drug costs for a full course of treatment were estimated using standard posology for each medicine and in each country. Regression analysis was used to test whether, at a societal-level, the cost of recently licensed drugs is related to their beneficial impact for patients. Across all eligible medicines, average treatment costs were lowest in France and Australia and highest in the UK and US. Compared with Australia, France, and the UK, cancer medicines were on average between 1.2 and 1.9 times more expensive in the US, where the average total per patient cost for treatment was $68,255.17. Costs for new cancer medicines are high and, at best, only weakly associated with drug clinical benefits. The strength of this relationship nevertheless varied across countries. Some new cancer drugs-particularly in the US-may be neither affordable nor clinically beneficial over existing treatments. While all countries can benefit from strategies that more robustly align price with therapeutic benefit in cancer drugs, the US stands out in its opportunity to improve both affordability and value in cancer drug treatment.

How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review

There is growing interest in the use of "distributionally-sensitive" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.

Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future

In 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.

Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare can be guided by both efficiency and equity principles. The latter principle is often explicated in terms of disease severity and, for example, defined as absolute or proportional shortfall. These severity operationalizations do not explicitly consider patients' age, even though age may be inextricably related to severity and an equity-relevant characteristic.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the relative strength of societal preferences for severity and age for informing allocation decisions in healthcare.

METHODS

We elicited preferences for severity and age in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (N = 1025) by applying choice tasks and person-trade-off tasks in a design in which severity levels and ages varied both separately and simultaneously between patient groups. We calculated person trade-off ratios and, in addition, applied ordinary least squares regression models to aid interpretation of the ratios when both severity and age varied.

RESULTS

Respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 2.46-3.50) to reimbursing treatment for relatively more severely ill and younger patients when preferences for both were elicited separately. When preferences were elicited simultaneously, respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 1.98 and 2.42) to reimbursing treatment for relatively younger patients, irrespective of patients' severity levels. Ratios varied depending on severity level and age and were generally higher when the difference in severity and age was larger between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that severity operationalizations and equity weights based on severity alone may not align with societal preferences. Adjusting decision-making frameworks to reflect age-related societal preferences should be considered.

What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a way to assess priority-setting in health care provision. This approach allows for the evaluation of individuals’ preferences as a means of adding criteria to traditional quality-adjusted life year analysis. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify attributes for designing a DCE in order to then develop and validate a framework that supports decision-making on health technologies. Our systematic literature review replicated the methods and search terms used by de Bekker-Grob et al. 2012 and Clark et al. 2014. The Medline database was searched for articles dated between 2008 and 2015. The search was limited to studies in English that reflected general preferences and were choice-based, published as full-text articles and related to health technologies. This study included 72 papers, 52% of which focused on DCEs on drug treatments. The average number of attributes used in all included DCE studies was 5.74 (SD 1.98). The most frequently used attributes in these DCEs were improvements in health (78%), side effects (57%) and cost of treatment (53%). Other, less frequently used attributes included waiting time for treatment or duration of treatment (25%), severity of disease (7%) and value for money (4%). The attributes identified might inform future DCE surveys designed to study societal preferences regarding health technologies in order to better inform decisions in health technology assessment.

Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada, reimbursement recommendations on drugs for common and rare diseases are overseen by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and made through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and the Common Drug Review (CDR). While the agency specifies information requirements for the review of drug submissions, how that information is used by each process to formulate final reimbursement recommendations, particularly on drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) in which per patient treatment costs are often high, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to recommendation type for DRDs.

METHODS

Information was extracted from CDR and pCODR recommendations on drugs for diseases with a prevalence < 1 in 2000 from January 2012 to April 2018. Data were tabulated and multiple logistic regression was applied to explore the association between recommendation type and the following factors: condition/review process (cancer vs non-cancer), year, prevalence, clinical effectiveness (improvements in surrogate, clinical and patient reported outcomes), safety, quality of evidence (availability of comparative data, consistency between population in trial and indication, and bias), clinical need, treatment cost, and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Two-way interactions were also explored.

RESULTS

A total of 103 recommendations were included. Eleven were resubmissions, all of which received a positive recommendation. Among new submissions (n = 92), DRDs that were safe or offered improvements in clinical or patient reported outcomes were more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations. No associations between recommendation type and daily treatment cost, cost-effectiveness, or condition (cancer or non-cancer) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical effectiveness, as opposed to economic considerations or whether the drug is indicated for cancer or non-cancer, determine the type of reimbursement recommendation.

Stance and swing phase knee flexion recover at different rates following total knee arthroplasty: An inertial measurement unit study

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the most common joint replacement in the United States. Range of motion (ROM) monitoring includes idealized clinic measures (e.g. goniometry during passive ROM) that may not accurately represent knee function. Accordingly, a novel, portable, inertial measurement unit (IMU) based ROM measurement method was developed, validated, and implemented. Knee flexion was computed via relative motion between two IMUs and validated via optical motion capture (p > 0.05). Prospective analyses of 10 healthy individuals (5M, 50 ± 19 years) and 20 patients undergoing TKA (3 lost to follow up, 10M, 65 ± 6 years) were completed. Controls wore IMUs for 1-week. Patients wore IMUs for 1-week pre-TKA, 6-weeks immediately post-TKA, and 1-week at 1-year post-TKA. Flexion was computed continuously each day (8-12 h). Metrics included daily maximum flexion and flexion during stance/swing phases of gait. Maximum flexion was equal between cohorts at all time points. Contrastingly, patient stance and swing flexion were reduced pre-TKA, yet improved post-TKA. Specifically, patient stance and swing flexion were reduced below control/pre-TKA values during post-TKA week 1. Stance flexion exceeded pre-TKA and equaled control levels after week 2. However, swing flexion only exceeded pre-TKA and equaled control levels at 1-year post-TKA. This novel method improves upon the accuracy/portability of current methods (e.g. goniometry). Interestingly, surgery did not impact maximum ROM, yet improved the ability to flex during gait allowing more efficient and safe ambulation. This is the first study continuously monitoring long-term flexion before/after TKA. The results offer richer information than clinical measures about expected TKA rehabilitation.