Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy

Citizens' views on prices of medicines reimbursed by the National Health Service: Findings from Italian online focus groups

INTRODUCTION

Access to medicines is one of the biggest challenges to health systems, affecting society and individuals. This study aims to explore citizens' opinions, perceptions and attitudes on the model of medicines' research and development (R&D) and price setting of medicines reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We run four online focus groups, analysed through thematic analysis.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

people aged 30-70 years, who had completed at least compulsory schooling (8-10 years), with no specialised knowledge about the subject.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

healthcare workers, pharmaceutical and device industry employees, researchers and medicine policy board members. We aimed to include a purposive sample of 20 participants, variable in terms of age, educational level and place of residence.

RESULTS

Eleven women and six men participated. The mean age was 53 years (range: 28-73). Most (n = 15) had a university degree or attended secondary schools. Eight had a job, five were not employed, and four were retired. In general, participants supported the role of the public health service. Almost all had limited knowledge of medicines' R&D and price setting. Most asked for transparency on medicine prices and negotiation criteria. Participants considered revenues of pharmaceutical companies disproportionate and most called for containment measures of profits. Most were in favour of a stronger public intervention in R&D and prices' negotiations. Few were sceptical of the public sector's ability to play this role.

DISCUSSION

Medicines' prices were discussed as a health matter. Increasing citizens' awareness of these topics is needed by providing spaces and conditions to participate in the discussion, including different perspectives and interests.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Members of BEUC-the European consumer organisation-proposed the project. Altroconsumo, an independent consumer organisation and OCU, a Spanish consumer organisation, participated in developing the project and the main topics to discuss. The Mario Negri Institute and Aplica cooperative-the Spanish methodological team-were involved by BEUC and their national organisations to define the methodology, organisational aspects and contents and conducted the focus groups.

Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study

OBJECTIVES

Rising costs of innovative drugs and therapeutics (D&Ts) have led to resource allocation challenges for healthcare institutions. There is limited evidence to guide priority-setting for institutional funding of high-cost D&Ts. This study sought to identify and elaborate on the substantive principles and procedures that should inform institutional funding decisions for high-cost off-formulary D&Ts through a case study of a quaternary care paediatric hospital.

METHODS

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews, both virtual and in-person, were conducted with institutional stakeholders (i.e. staff clinicians, senior leadership, and pharmacists) (n = 23) and two focus groups at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. Participants involved in, and impacted by, high-cost off-formulary drug funding decisions were recruited through stratified, purposive sampling. Participants were approached for study involvement between July 27, 2020 and June 7, 2022. Data was analysed through reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Institutional resource allocation for high-cost D&Ts was identified as ethically challenging but critical to sustainable access to novel therapies. Important substantive principles included: 1) clinical evidence of safety and efficacy, 2) economic considerations (direct costs, opportunity costs, value for money), 3) ethical principles (social justice, professional/organizational responsibility), and 4) disease-specific considerations. Multidisciplinary deliberation was identified as an essential procedural component of decision-making. Participants identified tension between innovation and the need for evidence-based decision-making; clinician and institutional responsibilities; and value for money and social justice. Participants emphasized the role of health system-level funding allocation in alleviating the financial and moral burden of decision-making by institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies values and processes to aid in the development and implementation of institutional resource allocation frameworks for high-cost innovative D&Ts.

Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations.

METHODS

A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework's four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

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.

Health and healthcare equity within the Canadian cancer care sector: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite a publicly-funded healthcare system, alarming cancer-related health and healthcare inequities persist in Canada. However, it remains unclear how equity is being understood and taken up within the Canadian cancer context. Our objective was to identify how health and healthcare equity are being discussed as goals or aims within the cancer care sector in Canada.

METHODS

A rapid scoping review was conducted; five biomedical databases, 30 multidisciplinary websites, and Google were searched. We included English-language documents published between 2008 and 2021 that discussed health or healthcare equity in the Canadian cancer context.

RESULTS

Of 3860 identified documents, 83 were included for full-text analysis. The prevalence of published and grey equity-oriented literature has increased over time (2008-2014 [n = 20]; 2015-2021 [n = 62]). Only 25% of documents (n = 21) included a definition of health equity. Concepts such as inequity, inequality and disparity were frequently used interchangeably, resulting in conceptual muddling. Only 43% of documents (n = 36) included an explicit health equity goal. Although a suite of actions were described across the cancer control continuum to address equity goals, most were framed as recommendations rather than direct interventions.

CONCLUSION

Health and healthcare equity is a growing priority in the cancer care sector; however, conceptual clarity is needed to guide the development of robust equity goals, and the development of sustainable, measurable actions that redress inequities across the cancer control continuum. If we are to advance health and healthcare equity in the cancer care sector, a coordinated and integrated approach will be required to enact transformative and meaningful change.

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.

How can the healthcare system deliver sustainable performance? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Increasing health costs, demand and patient multimorbidity challenge the sustainability of healthcare systems. These challenges persist and have been amplified by the global pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop an understanding of how the sustainable performance of healthcare systems (SPHS) has been conceptualised, defined and measured.

DESIGN

Scoping review of peer-reviewed articles and editorials published from database inception to February 2021.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Ovid Medline, and snowballing techniques.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included articles that discussed key focus concepts of SPHS: (1) definitions, (2) measurement, (3) identified challenges, (4) identified solutions for improvement and (5) scaling successful solutions to maintain SPHS.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

After title/abstract screening, full-text articles were reviewed, and relevant information extracted and synthesised under the five focus concepts.

RESULTS

Of 142 included articles, 38 (27%) provided a definition of SPHS. Definitions were based mainly on financial sustainability, however, SPHS was also more broadly conceptualised and included acceptability to patients and workforce, resilience through adaptation, and rapid absorption of evidence and innovations. Measures of SPHS were also predominantly financial, but recent articles proposed composite measures that accounted for financial, social and health outcomes. Challenges to achieving SPHS included the increasingly complex patient populations, limited integration because of entrenched fragmented systems and siloed professional groups, and the ongoing translational gaps in evidence-to-practice and policy-to-practice. Improvement strategies for SPHS included developing appropriate workplace cultures, direct community and consumer involvement, and adoption of evidence-based practice and technologies. There was also a strong identified need for long-term monitoring and evaluations to support adaptation of healthcare systems and to anticipate changing needs where possible.

CONCLUSIONS

To implement lasting change and to respond to new challenges, we need context-relevant definitions and frameworks, and robust, flexible, and feasible measures to support the long-term sustainability and performance of healthcare systems.

Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada

Background: Canada has a publicly funded healthcare system with a complex drug funding process. After Health Canada approval to market a drug, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) (now renamed the CADTH reimbursement review) makes a non-binding funding recommendation to the Canadian provinces (except Quebec), which each then decide whether the drug will be publicly funded. We identified the determinants of funding in this process. Methods: We analyzed drugs for advanced lung (n = 15), breast (n = 8), colorectal (CRC) (n = 7), melanoma (n = 10), and neuroendocrine (NET) (n = 3) cancers undergoing the funding decision process from 2011 to 2019. Determinants of funding assessed in the model included list price, cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation. The primary outcome was the correlation between list price and time to funding (TTF: Health Canada approval to first provincial funding). Secondary outcomes included an exploratory analysis of predictors of drug funding. Results: We analyzed 43 drugs: targeted agents 72%, immunotherapy 20%, chemotherapy 7%. A total of 72% were funded in at least one province. Median TTF was 379 days (IQR 203−601). Median list price (28-day course) was CAD 8213 (IQR CAD 5391−9445). Higher list price was not correlated with TTF (correlation coefficient −0.20, p = 0.28). There was no association between list price and pCODR recommendation or the decision to fund in at least one province. A positive pCODR recommendation correlated with the provinces’ funding decisions (p < 0.001), where 89% of drugs with a positive recommendation were funded and 100% of drugs with a negative recommendation were not funded. Tumor type was predictive of TTF (p < 0.001): CRC drugs were the slowest at a median of 2541 days (IQR 702−4379), and NETs were the quickest at a median of 0 days (IQR 0−502). Cancer type predicted decision to fund in at least one province (p = 0.005), with funding for 100% of NET drugs at the high end and 29% of CRC drugs at the low end. Drug class was predictive of TTF (p = 0.01): 465 days (IQR 245−702) for targeted agents, 443 days (IQR 298−587) for chemotherapy, and 339 days (IQR 164−446) for immunotherapy. Conclusions: Determinants of drug funding included cancer type, drug class, and pCODR recommendation but not list price. Factors other than cost were more heavily weighted in the funding decisions of cancer drugs in Canadian provinces.

Preparing newborn screening for the future: a collaborative stakeholder engagement exploring challenges and opportunities to modernizing the newborn screening system

Background and objectives

Projections that 60 transformative cell and gene therapies could be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within 10 years underscore an urgent need to modernize the newborn screening (NBS) system. This study convened expert stakeholders to assess challenges to the NBS system and propose solutions for its modernization.

Methods

NBS stakeholders (researchers, clinicians, state NBS leaders, advocates, industry professionals, and current/former advisory committee members) participated in one of five mixed-stakeholder panel discussions. Prior to panels, participants completed a survey in which they reviewed and ranked NBS challenges generated from relevant literature. During panels, participants deliberated on challenges and explored potential solutions. Pre-panel survey data were analyzed descriptively. Data from panel discussions were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis.

Results

Median scores of the ranked challenges (1 = most important) reveal the top three most important barriers to address: critical missing data for NBS decision-making (Median = 2), burden on state NBS laboratories (Median = 3), and the amount of time required for state-level implementation of screening for new conditions (Median = 4). Panel discussions were rooted in recurring themes: the infant’s well-being should be the focal point; the transformative therapy pipeline, although undeniably positive for individuals with rare diseases, is a threat to NBS capacity; decisions about modernizing NBS should be evidence-based; additional financial support is required but not sufficient for modernization; and modernization will require participation of multiple NBS stakeholders. This final overarching theme is reported in depth, including expertise, coordination, and collaboration challenges facing NBS and novel approaches to oversight, partnership, and coordination that were suggested by participants.

Conclusions

This study engaged representatives from multiple stakeholder groups to generate potential solutions to challenges facing NBS in the United States. These solutions provide a rich starting point for policy makers and other stakeholders who desire to maximize the impact of new transformative therapies for babies, families, and society.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-021-03035-x.

Are digital citizen panels an innovative, deliberative approach to cardiovascular research?

Online citizen panels are an innovative way to collect information about populations. They can help explain social determinants of health while involving citizens in research, allowing researchers to help the community, and advance cardiovascular research. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of collecting information via online citizen panels and assesses these panels' potential in cardiovascular research. To exemplify such panels' use, we discuss a case study that utilized the Swedish Citizen Panel.

How deliberative designs empower citizens' voices: A case study on Ghana's deliberative poll on agriculture and the environment

Empowering ordinary citizens with the capacity to deliberate is a core issue in science communication. Despite growing deliberative practices in developed nations, it is significantly less understood how public deliberation can happen among populations who live with limited educational resources and poor urban infrastructure in developing countries. This article studied a case of a well-designed deliberation method, Deliberative Poll, in Tamale, Ghana. I analyzed the stimulus information video and thousands of speech acts from deliberation transcripts to examine how expertise was used and what was deliberated in public dialogue. A broad range of expertise and interests were represented. Participants had thoughtful discussions on complex policy issues and their discussion results were considered by local policymakers. This article contributes to our understanding of how to effectively foster public deliberation among populations in the Global South and measure the nuances of expertise and public reasoning on science.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced melanoma: a drug review

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitors, including nivolumab, and targeted agents have dramatically improved the outcome for patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Areas covered: This is a narrative review of the published evidence on nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Expert opinion: In ipilimumab pre-treated patients (CheckMate 037), nivolumab was associated with a higher response rate and a longer duration of response when compared to chemotherapy. In previously untreated patients, nivolumab improves survival when compared to chemotherapy (CheckMate 066) or to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab also improves survival when compared to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). CheckMate 067 was not designed to compare the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination to nivolumab alone. A modified regimen using a lower dose of ipilimumab in combination with standard dose nivolumab is better tolerated than nivolumab in combination with standard dose ipilimumab (CheckMate 511). In patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab improve survival when compared to ipilimumab. Nivolumab is equally active in BRAF mutated and BRAF wild type melanoma. The optimal sequence of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutated patients has not been established.

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

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.