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

Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Solidarity-based healthcare systems are being challenged by the incremental costs of new and expensive medicines for cancer and rare diseases. To regulate reimbursement of such drugs, the Dutch government introduced a policy instrument known as the Coverage Lock (CL) in 2015. Little is known about the public opinion regarding such policy instruments and their consequences, i.e., reimbursement of some, but not all, expensive medicines. We aimed to identify the preferences of Dutch citizens regarding the reimbursement of expensive medicines, and to investigate the views of the public on the use of the CL as a healthcare policy instrument and their input for improvement.

METHODS

Web-based survey of a representative sample of 1999 Dutch citizens aged 18 years and older (panel of research company Kantar Public). Potential respondents were approached via e-mail. Several policy measures, real-life cases and statements related to the CL were presented in the survey to respondents. Their responses were analysed by tabulating descriptive statistics (proportions and percentages).

RESULTS

1179 individuals (response rate 59%) filled in the questionnaire. Although a majority considered the CL policy unjustified, they preferred it to the alternative policy measures that were presented. In four real-life case descriptions of patients in need of expensive medicines, respondents most often indicated effectiveness, lack of availability of alternative treatment and improved quality of life due to treatment as reasons for a positive reimbursement decision. An unfavourable cost-benefit ratio was their main reason to be against reimbursement. Some argued that withholding reimbursement was a way of informing manufacturers that extremely high prices are unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

There is public support for patients in need of expensive medicine. Many respondents supported the CL as a reimbursement policy. However, there is a wish to optimize the interpretation of the assessment criteria and the weight these are attributed in decision making about reimbursement of expensive innovative medicine for patients.

Bedside Politics and Precarious Care: New Directions of Inquiry in Critical Nursing Studies

Health care systems are facing soaring workforce shortages, challenging their ability to secure timely access to good-quality care. In this context, nurses make difficult decisions about which patients to deliver care to, transfer to other providers, or strategically ignore. Yet, we still know little about how nurses engage in situated practices of bedside rationing. Building on the work of Giorgio Agamben and Judith Butler, we have developed a research agenda that homes in on a politics of bedside rationing. We argue that this agenda is essential to better understand the implications of scarcity for nursing and to explore new ways to cope with challenges faced.

Social pharmaceutical innovation and alternative forms of research, development and deployment for drugs for rare diseases

Rare diseases are associated with difficulties in addressing unmet medical needs, lack of access to treatment, high prices, evidentiary mismatch, equity, etc. While challenges facing the development of drugs for rare diseases are experienced differently globally (i.e., higher vs. lower and middle income countries), many are also expressed transnationally, which suggests systemic issues. Pharmaceutical innovation is highly regulated and institutionalized, leading to firmly established innovation pathways. While deviating from these innovation pathways is difficult, we take the position that doing so is of critical importance. The reason is that the current model of pharmaceutical innovation alone will not deliver the quantity of products needed to address the unmet needs faced by rare disease patients, nor at a price point that is sustainable for healthcare systems. In light of the problems in rare diseases, we hold that re-thinking innovation is crucial and more room should be provided for alternative innovation pathways. We already observe a significant number and variety of new types of initiatives in the rare diseases field that propose or use alternative pharmaceutical innovation pathways which have in common that they involve a diverse set of societal stakeholders, explicitly address a higher societal goal, or both. Our position is that principles of social innovation can be drawn on in the framing and articulation of such alternative pathways, which we term here social pharmaceutical innovation (SPIN), and that it should be given more room for development. As an interdisciplinary research team in the social sciences, public health and law, the cases of SPIN we investigate are spread transnationally, and include higher income as well as middle income countries. We do this to develop a better understanding of the social pharmaceutical innovation field's breadth and to advance changes ranging from the bedside to system levels. We seek collaborations with those working in such projects (e.g., patients and patient organisations, researchers in rare diseases, industry, and policy makers). We aim to add comparative and evaluative value to social pharmaceutical innovation, and we seek to ignite further interest in these initiatives, thereby actively contributing to them as a part of our work.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies

Health care coverage decisions may employ many different considerations, which are brought together across two phases. The assessment phase examines the available scientific evidence, such as the cost-effectiveness, of the technology. The appraisal then contextualises this evidence to arrive at an (advised) coverage decision, but little is known about how this is done.In the Netherlands, the appraisal is set up to achieve a societal weighing and is the primary place where need- and solidarity-related ('necessity') argumentations are used. To elucidate how the Dutch appraisal committee 'constructs necessity', we analysed observations and recordings of two appraisal committee meetings at the National Health Care Institute, the corresponding documents (five), and interviews with committee members and policy makers (13 interviewees in 12 interviews), with attention to specific necessity argumentations.The Dutch appraisal committee constructs necessity in four phases: (1) allowing explicit criteria to steer the process; (2) allowing patient (representative) contributions to challenge the process; (3) bringing new argumentations in from outside and weaving them together; and (4) formulating recommendations to societal stakeholders. We argue that in these ways, the appraisal committee achieves societal weighing rationality, as the committee actively uses argumentations from society and embeds the decision outcome in society.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Implementing pharmaceutical track-and-trace systems: a realist review

INTRODUCTION

One way to prevent falsified medical products from entering the regulated pharmaceutical supply chain is to implement a pharmaceutical track-and-trace system (PTTS). Such systems in the most extensive versions generally mandate a scan at every point of contact with the medical product: from the point of entry to dispensation. There have been several attempts to implement such systems; for example, a 'full' PTTS in Turkey and the more pared-down version offered by the European Union's Falsified Medicines Directive and Delegated Act. This study aims to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing (elements of) a PTTS, with the Turkish system used as a benchmark.

METHODS

We conducted a 'realist' review, which synthesises literature and aims to establish how a specific technology works, for whom, under which circumstances. We searched Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar databases, yielding 2,790 scholarly articles. We selected 21 for review.

RESULTS

Implementation of PTTS elements has been attempted in different compositions in several primarily high-income and middle-income countries. Factors that affected implementation included stakeholders like the government and supply chain actors, the coordination between them, and their awareness, knowledge, and skills, as well as regulation and legislation, monetary investments, and technical and digital requirements.

CONCLUSION

The interplay between contextual factors is crucial for successful PTTS implementation. Specifically, the findings indicate that aligning the incentives for all actors and allowing for adjustments in a continuous implementation process will likely facilitate implementation.

What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment

BACKGROUND

Recent attempts of active disinvestment (i.e. withdrawal of reimbursement by means of a policy decision) of reimbursed healthcare interventions in the Netherlands have differed in their outcome: some attempts were successful, with interventions actually being disinvested. Other attempts were terminated at some point, implying unsuccessful disinvestment. This study aimed to obtain insight into recent active disinvestment processes, and to explore what aspects affect their outcome.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from January to December 2018 with stakeholders (e.g. patients, policymakers, physicians) who were involved in the policy process of five cases for which the full or partial withdrawal of reimbursement was considered in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2017: benzodiazepines, medication for Fabry disease, quit smoking programme, psychoanalytic therapy and maternity care assistance. These cases covered both interventions that were eventually disinvested and interventions for which reimbursement was maintained after consideration. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, double coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The 37 interviews showed that support for disinvestment from stakeholders, especially from healthcare providers and policymakers, strongly affected the outcome of the disinvestment process. Furthermore, the institutional role of stakeholders as legitimized by the Dutch health insurance system, their financial interests in maintaining or discontinuing reimbursement, and the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients affected the outcome of the disinvestment process as well. A poor organization of patient groups may make it difficult for patients to exert pressure, which may contribute to successful disinvestment. No evidence was found of a consistent role of the formal Dutch package criteria (i.e. effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, necessity and feasibility) in active disinvestment processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Contextual factors as well as the possibility to relieve the consequences of disinvestment for current patients are important determinants of the outcome of active disinvestment processes. These results provide insight into active disinvestment processes and their determinants, and provide guidance to policymakers for a potentially more successful approach for future active disinvestment processes.

Who contextualises clinical epidemiological evidence? A political analysis of the problem of evidence-based medicine in the layered Dutch healthcare system

We critically examine the discussion on the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in healthcare governance. We take the institutionally layered Dutch healthcare system as our case study. Here, different actors are involved in the regulation, provision and financing of healthcare services. Over the last decades, these actors have related to EBM to inform their actor specific roles. At the same time, EBM has increasingly been problematised. To better understand this problematisation, we organised focus groups and interviews. We noticed that particularly EBM's reductionist epistemology and its uncritical use by 'professional others' are considered problematic. However, our analysis also reveals that something else seems to be at stake. In fact, all the actors involved underwrite EBM's reductionist epistemology and emphasise that evidence should be contextualised. They however do so in different ways and with different contexts in mind. Moreover, the ways in which some actors contextualise evidence has consequences for the ways in which others can do the same. We therefore emphasise that behind EBM's scientific problematisation lurks a political issue. A dispute over who should contextualise evidence how, in a layered healthcare system with interdependent actors that cater to both individual patients and the public. We urge public administration scholars and policymakers to open-up the political confrontation between healthcare actors and their sometimes irreconcilable, yet evidence-informed perspectives.

Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe

Background: Across Western Europe, procedures and formalised criteria for taking decisions on the coverage (inclusion in the benefits basket or equivalent) of healthcare technologies vary substantially. In the decision documents, which display the justification of, the rationale for, these decisions, national healthcare institutes may employ ‘contextual factors,’ defined here as situation-specific considerations. Little is known about how the use of such contextual factors compares across countries. We describe and compare contextual factors as used in coverage decisions generally and 4 decision documents specifically in Belgium, England, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Methods: Four group interviews with 3 experts from the national healthcare institute of each country, document and web site analysis, and a workshop with 1 to 2 of these experts per country were followed by the examination of the documents of 4 specific decisions taken in each of the 4 countries, sampled to vary widely in type of technology and decision outcome.

Results: From the available decision documents, we conclude that in every country studied, contextual factors are established ‘around the table,’ ie, in deliberation. All documents examined feature contextual factors, with similar contextual factor patterns leading to similar decisions in different countries. The Dutch decisions employ the widest variety of factors, with the exception of the societal functioning of the patient, which is relatively common in Belgium, England, and Germany. Half of the final decisions were taken in another setting, with the consequence that no documentation was retrievable for 2 decisions.

Conclusion: First, we conclude that in these countries, contextual factors are actively integrated in the decision document, and that this is achieved in deliberation. Conceptualising contextual factors as both situation-specific and actively-integrated affords insight into practices of contextualisation and provides an encouragement for exchange between decision-makers on more qualitative aspects of decisions. Second, the decisions that lacked a publicly accessible justification of the final decision document raised questions on the decisions’ legitimacy. Further research could address patterning of contextual factors, elucidate why some factors may remain implicit, and how decisions without a publicly available decision document may enable or restrain decision-making practice.

Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Some studies in the Netherlands have gauged public views on principles for healthcare priority setting, but they fall short of comprehensively explaining the public disapproval of several recent reimbursement decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain insight into citizens' preferences and identify the criteria they would propose for decisions pertaining to the benefits package of basic health insurance.

METHODS

Twenty-four Dutch citizens were selected for participation in a Citizen Forum, which involved 3 weekends. Deliberations took place in small groups and in plenary, guided by 2 moderators, on the basis of 8 preselected case studies, which participants later compared and prioritized under the premise that not all treatments can or need to be reimbursed. Participants received opportunities to inform themselves through written brochures and live interactions with 3 experts.

RESULTS

The Citizen Forum identified 16 criteria for inclusion or exclusion of treatments in the benefits package; they relate to the condition (2 criteria), treatment (11 criteria), and individual characteristics of those affected by the condition (3 criteria). In most case studies, it was a combination of criteria that determined whether or not participants favored inclusion of the treatment under consideration in the benefits package. Participants differed in their opinion about the relative importance of criteria, and they had difficulty in operationalizing and trading off criteria to provide a recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed citizens are prepared to make and, to a certain extent, capable of making reasoned choices about the reimbursement of health services. They realize that choices are both necessary and possible. Broad public support and understanding for making tough choices regarding the benefits package of basic health insurance is not automatic: it requires an investment.

How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?

A deliberative citizens panel was held to obtain insight into criteria considered relevant for healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Our aim was to examine whether and how panel participation influenced participants' views on this topic. Participants (n = 24) deliberated on eight reimbursement cases in September and October, 2017. Using Q methodology, we identified three distinct viewpoints before (T₀) and after (T₁) panel participation. At T₀, viewpoint 1 emphasised that access to healthcare is a right and that prioritisation should be based solely on patients' needs. Viewpoint 2 acknowledged scarcity of resources and emphasised the importance of treatment-related health gains. Viewpoint 3 focused on helping those in need, favouring younger patients, patients with a family, and treating diseases that heavily burden the families of patients. At T₁, viewpoint 1 had become less opposed to prioritisation and more considerate of costs. Viewpoint 2 supported out-of-pocket payments more strongly. A new viewpoint 3 emerged that emphasised the importance of cost-effectiveness and that prioritisation should consider patient characteristics, such as their age. Participants' views partly remained stable, specifically regarding equal access and prioritisation based on need and health gains. Notable changes concerned increased support for prioritisation, consideration of costs, and cost-effectiveness. Further research into the effects of deliberative methods is required to better understand how they may contribute to the legitimacy of and public support for allocation decisions in healthcare.

Addressing Health System Values in Health Technology Assessment: The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly used around the globe to inform resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, the importance of using explicit and transparent criteria for coverage decision making in line with health system values has been acknowledged. However, the values of a health system are often not explicitly taken into account in the HTA process. This situation influences the allocation of scarce resources and could lead to a discord between the HTA outcome and the values of the health system. We describe how evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) can help to improve this situation. EDPs are integrating two theoretical frameworks; multi-criteria decision-analysis and accountability for reasonableness. Through the use of EDPs, HTA agencies can ensure that health system values are more explicitly and consistently taken into account in the HTA process, enhancing the legitimacy of coverage decisions.