Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada

Challenges to ethical public engagement in research funding: a perspective from practice

European research funding organizations (RFOs) are increasingly experimenting with public engagement in their funding activities. This case study draws attention to the challenges they face in preparing, implementing, and evaluating ethical public engagement in the context of setting funding priorities, formulating calls for proposals, and evaluating project proposals. We discuss challenges related to seven themes: (1) recruiting participants; (2) commitments and expectations; (3) meaningful dialogue and equal engagement; (4) accommodating vulnerability; (5) funding call formulations; (6) lack of expertise in engagement ethics; and (7) uncertainty, resource constraints, and external factors. To address these challenges, we propose the following seven interventions: (1) developing comprehensive recruitment strategies with experienced recruiters and community organizations; (2) establishing clear communication of roles, expectations, and outcomes through codes of conduct; (3) training mediators to address power imbalances; (4) designing flexible engagement methods and providing tailored support; (5) implementing collaborative feedback loops for inclusive funding call formulation; (6) enhancing ethical standards through internal expertise and external advisory inputs; and (7) developing adaptive strategies for flexible and ethical public engagement. These recommendations emphasize the need for context-adaptive insights to support funding organizations to implement ethical public engagement activities, even when faced with organizational constraints and a lack of ethical expertise.

Public Deliberation for Ethically Complex Policies: The Case of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada

Almost 50,000 people in Canada have had a medically assisted death since federal legislation was passed in 2016. Still, the debate about the permissibility of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) continues to rage. The central role of shared values and ethics in public policy making emphasizes the importance of engaging the public, particularly around heavily value-laden issues such as MAiD. Public deliberation, a mode of engagement that fosters sustained and reasoned discussion between participants, is well-suited to addressing such ethically contentious policy issues. In this paper, we review recent efforts to engage the public on assisted dying within and outside Canada and explain how public deliberation could contribute substantively to MAiD policy making.

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.

Adding epitope compatibility to deceased donor kidney allocation criteria: recommendations from a pan-Canadian online public deliberation

BACKGROUND

The widening supply-demand imbalance for kidneys necessitates finding ways to reduce rejection and improve transplant outcomes. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) epitope compatibility between donor and recipient may minimize premature graft loss and prolong survival, but incorporating this strategy to deceased donor allocation criteria prioritizes transplant outcomes over wait times. An online public deliberation was held to identify acceptable trade-offs when implementing epitope compatibility to guide Canadian policymakers and health professionals in deciding how best to allocate kidneys fairly.

METHODS

Invitations were mailed to 35,000 randomly-selected Canadian households, with over-sampling of rural/remote locations. Participants were selected for socio-demographic diversity and geographic representation. Five two-hour online sessions were held from November-December 2021. Participants received an information booklet and heard from expert speakers prior to deliberating on how to fairly implement epitope compatibility for transplant candidates and governance issues. Participants collectively generated and voted on recommendations. In the final session, kidney donation and allocation policymakers engaged with participants. Sessions were recorded and transcribed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two individuals participated and generated nine recommendations. There was consensus on adding epitope compatibility to the existing deceased donor kidney allocation criteria. However, participants recommended including safeguards/flexibility around this (e.g., mitigating declining health). They called for a transition period to epitope compatibility, including an ongoing comprehensive public education program. Participants unanimously recommended regular monitoring and public sharing of epitope-based transplant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants supported adding epitope compatibility to kidney allocation criteria, but advised safeguards and flexibility around implementation. These recommendations provide guidance to policymakers about incorporating epitope-based deceased donor allocation criteria.

Public values and guiding principles for implementing epitope compatibility in kidney transplantation allocation criteria: results from a Canadian online public deliberation

BACKGROUND

Epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney allocation is an emerging area of precision medicine (PM), seeking to improve compatibility between donor kidneys to transplant candidates in the hope of avoiding kidney rejection. Though the potential benefits of using epitope compatibility are promising, the implied modification of deceased organ allocation criteria requires consideration of significant clinical and ethical trade-offs. As a matter of public policy, these trade-offs should consider public values and preferences. We invited members of the Canadian public to participate in a deliberation about epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney transplantation; to identify what is important to them and to provide recommendations to policymakers.

METHODS

An online public deliberation was conducted with members of the Canadian public, in which participants were asked to construct recommendations for policymakers regarding the introduction of epitope compatibility to kidney allocation criteria. In the present paper, a qualitative analysis was conducted to identify the values reflected in participants' recommendations. All virtual sessions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants constructed nine recommendations regarding the adoption of epitope compatibility into deceased donor kidney allocation. Five values were identified that drove participants' recommendations: Health Maximization, Protection/Mitigation of Negative Impacts, Fairness, Science/Evidence-based Healthcare, and Responsibility to Maintain Trust. Conflicts between these values were discussed in terms of operational principles that were required for epitope compatibility to be implemented in an acceptable manner: the needs for Flexibility, Accountability, Transparent Communication and a Transition Plan. All nine recommendations were informed by these four principles. Participant deliberations were often dominated by the conflict between Health Maximization and Fairness or Protection/Mitigation of Negative Impacts, which was discussed as the need for Flexibility. Two additional values (Efficient Use of Resources and Logic/Rationality) were also discussed and were reasons for some participants voting against some recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Public recommendations indicate support for using epitope compatibility in deceased donor kidney allocation. A flexible approach to organ allocation decision-making may allow for the balancing of Health Maximization against maintaining Fairness and Mitigating Negative Impacts. Flexibility is particularly important in the context of epitope compatibility and other PM initiatives where evidence is still emerging.

Vaccine nationalism will persist: global public goods need effective engagement of global citizens

Covid-19 presents a unique opportunity to transform democratic engagement in the governance of global public goods. In this paper, I describe a global public goods framework and how it relates to Covid-19 vaccines, and summarize some of the global responses to Covid-19. I discuss some of the global threats to health and prosperity posed by the inequitable distribution of vaccines, and propose transformative thinking to democratically engage citizens in the governance of global public goods. In recent years, public-private partnerships and philanthropic organizations have successfully stepped in to help international organizations like the UN and WHO provide global public goods, but they are not democratically elected or publicly accountable. Global public goods are critical to addressing Covid-19, future pandemic preparedness, global health policy, health equity, and the unfolding climate crisis. To make us more resistant and resilient to future global health crises we need transformative thinking to democratically engage global citizens. We need to lay the foundations for a 'global social contract' on global public goods.

Public values and plurality in health priority setting: What to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices

CONTEXT

'What does 'The Public' think?' is a question often posed by researchers and policy makers, and public values are regularly invoked to justify policy decisions. Over time there has been a participatory turn in the social and health sciences, including health technology assessment and priority setting in health, towards citizen participation such that public policies reflect public values. It is one thing to agree that public values are important, however, and another to agree on how public values should be elicited, deliberated upon and integrated into decision-making. Surveys of public values rarely deliver unanimity, and preference heterogeneity, or plurality, is to be expected.

METHODS

This paper examines the role of public values in health policy and how to elicit, analyse, and present values, in the face of plurality. We delineate the strengths and weaknesses of aggregative and deliberative methods before setting out a new empirical framework, drawing on Sunstein's Incompletely Theorised Agreements, based on three levels: principles, policies and patients. The framework is illustrated using a recognised policy dilemma - the provision of high cost, limited-effect medicines intended to extend life for people with terminal illnesses.

FINDINGS

Application of the multi-level framework to public values permits transparent consideration of plurality, including analysis of coherence and consensus, in a way that offers routes to policy recommendations that are based on public values and justified in those terms.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the new framework and eliciting quantitative and qualitative data across levels of abstraction has the potential to inform policy recommendations grounded in public values, where values are plural. This is not to suggest that one solution will magically emerge, but rather that choices between policies can be explicitly justified in relation to the properties of public values, and a much clearer understanding of (in)consistencies and areas of consensus.

Eliciting patient views on the allocation of limited healthcare resources: a deliberation on hepatitis C treatment in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

In response to the development of highly effective but expensive new medications, policymakers, payors, and health systems are considering novel and pragmatic ways to provide these medications to patients. One approach is to target these treatments to those most likely to benefit. However, to maximize the fairness of these policies, and the acceptance of their implementation, the values and beliefs of patients should be considered. The provision of treatments for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in the resource-constrained context of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) offered a real-world example of this situation, providing the opportunity to test the value of using Democratic Deliberation (DD) methods to solicit the informed opinions of laypeople on this complex issue.

METHODS

We recruited Veterans (n = 30) from the VHA to attend a DD session. Following educational presentations from content experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions to: 1) identify strategies to overcome CHC treatment barriers and 2) evaluate, vote on, and modify/improve two CHC treatment policies - "first come, first served" (FCFS) and "sickest first" (SF). We used transcripts and facilitators' notes to identify key themes from the small group discussions. Additionally, participants completed pre- and post-DD surveys.

RESULTS

Most participants endorsed the SF policy over the FCFS policy, emphasizing the ethical and medical appropriateness of treating the sickest first. Concerns about SF centered on the difficulty of implementation (e.g., how is "sickest" determined?) and unfairness to other Veterans. Proposed modifications focused on: 1) the need to consider additional health factors, 2) taking behavior and lifestyle into account, 3) offering education and support, 4) improving access, and 5) facilitating better decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

DD offered a robust and useful method for addressing the allocation of the scarce resource of CHC treatment. Participants were able to develop a modified version of the SF policy and offered diverse recommendations to promote fairness and improve quality of care for Veterans. DD is an effective approach for incorporating patient preferences and gaining valuable insights for critical healthcare policy decisions in resource-limited environments.

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand

Background

Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries’ approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries’ approaches.

Methods

To describe two countries’ deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country’s rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes.

Results

In both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries’ new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

To face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium’s and New Zealand’s public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system’s priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.

Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems

Expenditure on cancer therapies is rising rapidly in many countries, particularly for cancer drugs. In recent years, this has stimulated a global debate among the public, patients, clinicians, decision-makers, and the pharmaceutical industry on value, affordability, and sustainability propositions relating to cancer therapies. In this article, we discuss some recent developments in evidence-based approaches to priority setting and resource allocation in Canadian cancer systems. These developments include new methods for deliberative public engagement, generating and using real-world evidence, multi-criteria decision analysis, and handling uncertainty with evidence for gene therapies.

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

Background

Decisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities.

Methods

In September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals’ willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes.

Results

Participants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or “grandfathering” approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted.

Conclusions

The results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.

What Is the Value of Innovative Pharmaceutical Therapies in Oncology and Hematology? A Willingness-to-Pay Study in Bulgaria

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the views of Bulgarian oncologists and hematologists regarding the value of innovative pharmaceutical treatments in their clinical area.

METHODS

Physicians were invited to review a life-prolonging scenario and to indicate what minimum improvement in median survival a new treatment would have to generate for them to recommend it over the standard of care. Respondents were also asked to state the highest cost at which they would recommend a new therapy that would improve patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) but would have no impact on survival. In addition, physicians were asked whether they would consider different responses under certain circumstances. Responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each scenario.

RESULTS

In the life-prolonging scenario, participants required a median of 12-month improvement in the survival to reimburse a new therapy at an incremental cost of €50 000, implying a willingness-to-pay of €50 000 per QALY gained. In the HRQoL-enhancing scenario, respondents indicated a €100 000 median cost per QALY gained. We observed a significant variation in responses. Although the median ICER for better HRQoL was twice as high as the median ICER for longer survival, 5% trimmed mean values were almost equal. Physicians did not believe that a higher ICER should be used for the treatment of children or for rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high willingness-to-pay for innovative drugs in oncology and hematology. The wide range of responses observed, however, indirectly implies a lack of consensus on the use of explicit ICER thresholds in Bulgaria.

Reports of rationing from the neglected realm of capital investment: Responses to resource constraint in the English National Health Service

Health systems around the world face financial pressures that can affect sustainability and patient outcomes, and there is a vast literature devoted to the allocation of scarce health care resources. Capital spending - for example on estates, equipment and information technology - is an important but often neglected area of this literature. This study explores the constraints on the allocation of capital budgets in health care, before addressing the question: what is the role of priority setting and rationing in responses to these constraints? The paper presents findings from interviews conducted with senior finance professionals in 30 National Health Service local provider organisations across England. Findings suggest a pervasive sense of impending crisis, with capital restrictions limiting investment in buildings, infrastructure and equipment. The paper applies a conceptual classification scheme from the classic rationing literature (the forms of rationing framework) and identifies widespread practices of 'selection', 'dilution' and 'delay', with 'denial' and 'termination' comparatively rare. Practices of 'deflection' and 'deterrence' are ascribed to national actors as a means of restricting the flow of capital resources to the system. The study suggests that there is little by way of tailored support for priority setting in capital spending, and a perception that decisions are often reactive and short term. It also suggests that wider system features and dynamics can preclude or constrain priority setting at the organisational level. The authors use these findings to suggest future conceptual development of the forms of rationing framework and make recommendations for research and practice in this area.