Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs

Stakeholders' perspectives on disinvestment of low-value healthcare interventions and practices in Malaysia: an online survey

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare disinvestment requires multi-level decision-making, and early stakeholder engagement is essential to facilitate implementation and acceptance. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of Malaysian healthcare stakeholders to disinvestment initiatives as well as identify disinvestment activities in the country.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from February to March 2023 among Malaysian healthcare stakeholders involved in resource allocation and decision-making at various levels of governance. Response frequencies were analyzed descriptively and cross-tabulation was performed for specific questions to compare the responses of different groups of stakeholders. For free-text replies, content analysis was used with each verbatim response examined and assigned a theme.

RESULTS

A total of 153 complete responses were analyzed and approximately 37 percent of participants had prior involvement in disinvestment initiatives. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness ranked as the most important criteria in assessment for disinvestment. Surprisingly, equity was rated the lowest priority despite its crucial role in healthcare decision-making. Almost 90 percent of the respondents concurred that a formal disinvestment framework is necessary and the importance of training for the program's successful implementation. Key obstacles to the adoption of disinvestment include insufficient stakeholder support and political will as well as a lack of expertise in executing the process.

CONCLUSIONS

While disinvestment is perceived as a priority for efficient resource allocation in Malaysian healthcare, there is a lack of a systematic framework for its implementation. Future research should prioritize methodological analysis in healthcare disinvestment and strategies for integrating equity considerations in evaluating disinvestment candidates.

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes

BACKGROUND

The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?

DESIGN

Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels.

RESULTS

In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level.

IMPLICATIONS

Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement.

HIGHLIGHTS

We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.

Asking those who know their needs best: A framework for active engagement and involvement of childhood cancer survivors and parents in the process of psychosocial research-A workshop report

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare research is crucial for effectively addressing patients' needs and setting appropriate research priorities. However, there is a lack of awareness and adequate methods for practicing PPIE, especially for vulnerable groups like childhood cancer survivors.

AIMS

This project aimed to develop and evaluate engagement methods to actively involve pediatric oncological patients, survivors, and their caregivers in developing relevant research questions and practical study designs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An interdisciplinary working group recruited n = 16 childhood cancer survivors and their caregivers to work through the entire process of developing a research question and a practicable study design. A systematic literature review was conducted to gather adequate PPIE methods which were then applied and evaluated in a series of three workshop modules, each lasting 1.5 days. The applied methods were continuously evaluated, while a monitoring group oversaw the project and continuously developed and adapted additional methods. The participants rated the different methods with varying scores. Over the workshop series, the participants successfully developed a research question, devised an intervention, and designed a study to evaluate their project. They also reported increased expertise in PPIE and research knowledge compared to the baseline. The project resulted in a practical toolbox for future research, encompassing the final workshop structure, evaluated methods and materials, guiding principles, and general recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that with a diverse set of effective methods and flexible support, actively involving patients, survivors, and caregivers can uncover patients' unmet disease-related needs and generate practical solutions apt for scientific evaluation. The resulting toolbox, filled with evaluated and adaptable methods (workbook, Supplement 1 and 2), equips future scientists with the necessary resources to successfully perform PPIE in the development of health care research projects that effectively integrate patients' perspectives and address actual cancer-related needs. This integration of PPIE practices has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of health research and care, as well as to increase patient empowerment leading to sustainable improvements in patients' quality of life.

Integration of real-world evidence from different data sources in health technology assessment

Real-world evidence (RWE) is being increasingly used by a wide range of stakeholders involved in the therapeutic product lifecycle but remains underutilized in the health technology assessment (HTA) process. RWE aims to fill the current evidence gaps, reduce the uncertainty around the benefits of medical technologies, and better understand the long-term impact of health technologies in real-world conditions. Despite the minimal use of RWE in some elements of HTA, there has been a larger push to further utilize RWE in the HTA processes. HTA bodies, as other stakeholders, work towards developing more robust means to leverage RWE from various data sources in the HTA processes. However, these agencies need to overcome important challenges before the broader incorporation of RWE into their routine practice. This paper aims to explore the extensive integration of RWE utilizing diverse sources of RWD. We discuss the utilization of RWE in HTA processes, considering aspects such as when, where, and how RWE can be effectively applied. Additionally, we seek the potential challenges and barriers associated with the utilization of different data sources.

Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions

INTRODUCTION

The unique evidentiary, economic and ethical challenges associated with health technology assessment (HTA) of precision therapies limit access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth, for whom such challenges are amplified. We elicited citizens' perspectives about values-based criteria relevant to the assessment of paediatric precision therapies to inform the development of a child-tailored HTA framework.

METHODS

We held four citizen panels virtually in May-June 2021, informed by a plain-language citizen brief summarizing global and local evidence about the challenges, policy and programmatic options and implementation strategies related to enhancing access to precision therapies for Canadian children and youth. Panellists were recruited through a nationally representative database, medical/patient networks and social media. We inductively coded and thematically analysed panel transcripts to generate themes and identify priority values.

RESULTS

The perspectives of panellists (n = 45) coalesced into four overlapping themes, with attendant subthemes, relevant to a child-tailored HTA framework: (1) Childhood Distinctions: vulnerability, 'fair innings', future potential, family impacts; (2) Voice: agency of children and youth; lived versus no lived experience; (3) One versus Many: disease severity, rarity, equity, unmet need and (4) Health System Governance: funding, implementation inequities, effectiveness and safety. Participants broadly agreed that childhood distinctions, particularly family impacts, justify child-tailored HTA. Dissent arose over whose voice should inform HTA and how such perspectives are best incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

Citizens can offer unique insights into criteria relevant to the development or revision of HTA frameworks to capture holistic, societally responsive dimensions of value attached to unique contexts or populations, including children. Balancing the hopes and expectations of patients and caregivers for access to expensive but potential life-altering therapies against the opportunity costs borne by encompassing health systems is a fundamental challenge that will require rigorous methods to elicit, weigh and reconcile varied views.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A patient advocate served on the steering committee of this study and co-authored this article. Key informants for the Citizen Brief included patient advocates and caregivers; a separate patient advocate reviewed the Brief before dissemination. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the general public and caregivers of children, with written consent.

If you were a policymaker, which treatment would you disinvest? A participatory value evaluation on public preferences for active disinvestment of health care interventions in the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Currently, it is not known what attributes of health care interventions citizens consider important in disinvestment decision-making (i.e. decisions to discontinue reimbursement). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the preferences of citizens of the Netherlands toward the relative importance of attributes of health care interventions in the context of disinvestment.

METHODS

A participatory value evaluation (PVE) was conducted in April and May 2020. In this PVE, 1143 Dutch citizens were asked to save at least €100 million by selecting health care interventions for disinvestment from a list of eight unlabeled health care interventions, described solely with attributes. A portfolio choice model was used to analyze participants' choices.

RESULTS

Participants preferred to disinvest health care interventions resulting in smaller gains in quality of life and life expectancy that are provided to older patient groups. Portfolios (i.e. combinations of health care interventions) resulting in smaller savings were preferred for disinvestment over portfolios with larger savings.

CONCLUSION

The disinvestment of health care interventions resulting in smaller health gains and that are targeted at older patient groups is likely to receive most public support. By incorporating this information in the selection of candidate interventions for disinvestment and the communication on disinvestment decisions, policymakers may increase public support for disinvestment.

To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens.

METHOD

In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics.

RESULTS

The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants' age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem.

CONCLUSION

Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

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.

Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions

OBJECTIVES

To obtain public support for the active disinvestment (i.e. policy decision to stop reimbursement) of healthcare interventions, it is important to have insight in what the public thinks about disinvestment and which considerations they find relevant in this context. Currently, evidence on relevant considerations in the disinvestment context is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the societal views in the Netherlands on the active disinvestment of healthcare interventions and obtain insight into the considerations that are relevant for those holding the different views.

METHODS

A Q-methodology study was conducted among a purposively selected sample of citizens (n = 43). Data were collected in June and July 2019. Participants individually ranked a set of 43 statements broadly covering the issues that participants could consider relevant in the disinvestment context, from 'least agree' to 'most agree'. Qualitative feedback on the statement ranking was collected from each participant using a questionnaire. Principal component analysis followed by oblimin rotation was used to identify clusters of participants with similar statement rankings. These clusters/factors were interpreted as distinct viewpoints using the factor arrays and qualitative questionnaire responses of participants.

RESULTS

Four viewpoints were identified. People holding viewpoint I believe that reimbursement of necessary healthcare should be maintained, irrespective of its costs. People holding viewpoint II agree with viewpoint I, although they believe that necessity should be objectively determined. People holding viewpoint III think that unnecessary, ineffective and inefficient healthcare should be disinvested. People holding viewpoint IV, consider it most important that disinvestment decision-making processes are transparent and consistent.

CONCLUSION

Insight in the distinct viewpoints identified in this study contributes to a better understanding of why it has been considered difficult to obtain public support for disinvestment of healthcare interventions, and can help policymakers to change their approach to disinvestment to increase public support.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.