Who should be given priority for public funding?

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.

Identifying health inequities faced by older adults with rare diseases: A systematic literature review and proposal for an ethical spectrum and resource allocation framework

Ageism in healthcare has received increased attention in recent years, but literature focusing on how it affects individuals living with rare diseases remains scant. The rare disease population already faces obstacles when navigating health systems, and ageism has the potential to exacerbate existing health inequities. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature on health inequities in rare disease populations, seeking to identify publications that reported primary or secondary data on the equitable or inequitable treatment of these populations, or that discussed related regulatory, moral, or philosophical issues. Our aims were to understand how health inequities in these populations arise, how they are justified from societal points of view, how they manifest themselves in laws and regulations, and what effects they have on health care access and health outcomes. We retrieved information from 63 publications, which we inductively synthesized into five categories: ethical discussions, societal preferences, regulations, access to care, and health outcomes. Integrating insights from these categories, we developed an Ethical Spectrum and Resource Allocation Framework, which explains the emergence of equity issues and how they are manifested in health systems. By providing a better understanding of the root causes of health inequities, particularly among older adults, the framework can inform health policymaking, improving access to care and health outcomes for rare disease patients.

Lessons learned from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative for future risk-sharing and managed access agreements for pharmaceutical and advanced therapies in Canada

Risk sharing agreements (RSAs) and managed access agreements have emerged as tools to overcome evidentiary uncertainty and contain costs of pharmaceuticals; however, Canada has relatively little experience with these health policy instruments. This article describes one of the few examples of national RSAs. Enzyme replacement therapies (ERT) were introduced in Canada to treat Fabry disease in the early 2000s through an RSA. Based on qualitative interviews with key participating actors, this article explains how this RSA ensured continuity of treatment for patients already on ERT, and collected robust real-world evidence to secure treatment for future Fabry patients. We show the importance of partnerships, collaborations, and active patient communities in establishing RSAs, as well as the critical role of robust registries for the collection, storage, and use of that real-world data. In doing so, this paper points to reasons that explain the relative dearth of RSAs in Canada, which can be resource (both human and finance) intensive and are difficult to broker in a federalist health system. Through these findings, policy lessons are developed concerning the need for technological and governance platforms on how RSA in Canada can be more effectively supported going forward in a broader move towards "social pharmaceutical innovation".

Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the public view on priority-setting criteria for healthcare resource allocation. Specifically, it investigates how the value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) varies depending on patient characteristics.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted using an online sample of the general South Korean population. Respondents were presented with two competing treatment scenarios. The attributes of the scenarios were age at disease onset, life expectancy without treatment, life-years gain with treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) without treatment, and HRQoL gains with treatment. Two hundred choice sets were generated and randomly allocated into 20 blocks. A conditional logit model was used to estimate the factors affecting the respondents' choices.

RESULTS

A total of 3,482 respondents completed the survey. The larger the QALY gain, the more likely it was that the scenario would be chosen but with a diminishing marginal value. Respondents prioritized 40-year-old patients over 5-year-olds and 5-year-olds over 70-year-olds and prioritized baseline HRQoL of 40% and 60% over 20%. Patients at the end of life were not preferred to those with a longer life expectancy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, respondents preferred health-maximizing options without explicit consideration for end-of-life patients or those with poor health. In addition, they revealed a kinked preference for patient age, prioritizing middle-aged patients over children and older people.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies

INTRODUCTION

We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits).

RESULTS

We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.