Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting

The ethical canary: narrow reflective equilibrium as a source of moral justification in healthcare priority-setting

Healthcare priority-setting institutions have good reason to want to demonstrate that their decisions are morally justified-and those who contribute to and use the health service have good reason to hope for the same. However, finding a moral basis on which to evaluate healthcare priority-setting is difficult. Substantive approaches are vulnerable to reasonable disagreement about the appropriate grounds for allocating resources, while procedural approaches may be indeterminate and insufficient to ensure a just distribution. In this paper, we set out a complementary, coherence-based approach to the evaluation of healthcare priority-setting. Drawing on Rawls, we argue that an institutional priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the extent to which its many normative commitments are mutually supportive and free from dissonance; that is, on the ability to establish narrow reflective equilibrium across the normative content of a priority-setter's policy and practice. While we do not suggest that the establishment of such equilibrium is sufficient for moral justification, we argue that failure to do so might-like the proverbial canary in the coalmine-act as a generalised warning that something is awry. We offer a theoretical argument in support of this view and briefly outline a practical method for systematically examining coherence across priority-setting policy and practice.

Do physicians' attitudes toward prioritization predict poor-health patients' access to care?

Physicians often face tight resource constraints, meaning they have to make trade-offs between which patients they care for and the amount of care received. Studies show that patients requiring many resources disproportionately suffer a loss of care when resources are constrained. This study uncovers whether physicians' attitudes toward prioritization of healthcare predicts poor-health patients' access to care. We combine unique survey data on Danish GPs' preferred prioritization principle with register data on their patients' contacts in general practice. We consider different types of contacts as the required effort could impact the need for prioritization. Our results show variation in GPs' prioritization principles, where a majority prefers a principle that may lead to an unequal distribution of services. We further find that GPs' attitudes toward prioritization predict some poor-health patients' access to general practice. GPs who state they prefer the principle of prioritizing patients in the poorest health state when resources tightened provide more contacts to poor-health patients. The additional contacts are typically high-effort contacts such as annual status meetings and home visits, but also low-effort contacts such as emails. Our findings indicate inequity in poor-health patients' access to care across general practices.

Rationale, conceptual issues, and resultant protocol for a mixed methods Person Trade Off (PTO) and qualitative study to estimate and understand the relative value of gains in health for children and young people compared to adults

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation of healthcare typically assumes that an identical health gain to different patients has the same social value. There is some evidence that the public may give greater value to gains for children and young people, although this evidence is not always consistent. We present a mixed methods study protocol where we aim to explore public preferences regarding health gains to children and young people relative to adults, in an Australian setting.

METHODS

This study is a Person Trade Off (PTO) choice experiment that incorporates qualitative components. Within the PTO questions, respondents will be asked to choose between treating different groups of patients that may differ in terms of patient characteristics and group size. PTO questions will be included in an online survey to explore respondent views on the relative value of health gains to different age groups in terms of extending life and improving different aspects of quality of life. The survey will also contain attitudinal questions to help understand the impact of question style upon reported preferences. Additionally, the study will test the impact of forcing respondents to express a preference between two groups compared with allowing them to report that the two groups are equivalent. One-to-one 'think aloud', semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore a sub-sample of respondents' motivations and views in more detail. Focus groups will be conducted with members of the public to discuss the study findings and explore their views on the role of public preferences in health care prioritisation based on patient age.

DISCUSSION

Our planned study will provide valuable information to healthcare decision makers in Australia who may need to decide whether to pay more for health gains for children and young people compared with adults. Additionally, the methodological test of forcing respondent choice or allowing them to express equivalence will contribute towards developing best practice methods in PTO studies. The rationale for and advantages of the study approach and potential limitations are discussed in the protocol.

Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to synthesise knowledge on the relative social value of child and adult health.

METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative studies that evaluated the willingness of the public to prioritise treatments for children over adults were included. A search to September 2023 was undertaken. Completeness of reporting was assessed using a checklist derived from Johnston et al. Findings were tabulated by study type (matching/person trade-off, discrete choice experiment, willingness to pay, opinion survey or qualitative). Evidence in favour of children was considered in total, by length or quality of life, methodology and respondent characteristics.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies were included; willingness to pay (n = 9), matching/person trade-off (n = 12), discrete choice experiments (n = 29), opinion surveys (n = 22) and qualitative (n = 16), with one study simultaneously included as an opinion survey. From 88 studies, 81 results could be ascertained. Across all studies irrespective of method or other characteristics, 42 findings supported prioritising children, while 12 provided evidence favouring adults in preference to children. The remainder supported equal prioritisation or found diverse or unclear views. Of those studies considering prioritisation within the under 18 years of age group, nine findings favoured older children over younger children (including for life saving interventions), six favoured younger children and five found diverse views.

CONCLUSIONS

The balance of evidence suggests the general public favours prioritising children over adults, but this view was not found across all studies. There are research gaps in understanding the public's views on the value of health gains to very young children and the motivation behind the public's views on the value of child relative to adult health gains.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review is registered at PROSPERO number: CRD42021244593. There were two amendments to the protocol: (1) some additional search terms were added to the search strategy prior to screening to ensure coverage and (2) a more formal quality assessment was added to the process at the data extraction stage. This assessment had not been identified at the protocol writing stage.

Can Independently Elicited Adult- and Child-Perspective Health-State Utilities Explain Priority Setting?

OBJECTIVES

Time trade-off (TTO) utilities for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states valued by adults taking a child's perspective are generally higher than their valuations of the same state for themselves. Ceteris paribus, the use of these utilities in economic evaluation implies that children gain less from treatments returning them to full health for a specified amount of time than adults. In this study, we explore if this implication affects individuals' views of priority-setting choices between treatments for adults and children.

METHODS

We elicited TTO utilities for 4 health states in online interviews, in which respondents valued states for a 10-year-old child and another adult their age. Views on priority setting were studied with person trade-off (PTO) tasks involving the same health states. We tested the ability of the subjects' TTO utilities to predict these societal choices in PTO.

RESULTS

There are no significant differences between adult and child health state valuations in our study, but we do observe a substantial preference for treating children over adults in the PTO task.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that perspective-dependent health-state utilities only explain a small part of views on priority setting between adults and children. External equity weights might be useful to better explain the higher priority given to children.

How should ICU beds be allocated during a crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems in many countries, and the rapid spread of the virus and the acute course of the disease resulted in a shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We studied preferences of the public in the Netherlands regarding the allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis.

Methods

We distributed a cross-sectional online survey at the end of March 2020 to a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands. We collected preferences regarding the allocation of ICU beds, both in terms of who should be involved in the decision-making and which rationing criteria should be considered. We conducted Probit regression analyses to investigate associations between these preferences and several characteristics and opinions of the respondents.

Results

A total of 1,019 respondents returned a completed survey. The majority favored having physicians (55%) and/or expert committees (51%) play a role in the allocation of ICU beds and approximately one-fifth did not favor any of the proposed decision-makers. Respondents preferred to assign higher priority to vulnerable patients and patients who have the best prospect of full recovery. They also preferred that personal characteristics, including age, play no role.

Conclusion

“Our findings show that current guidelines for allocating ICU beds that include age as an independent criterion may not be consistent with societal preferences. Age may only play a role indirectly, in relation to the vulnerability of patients and their prospect of full recovery. Allocation of ICU beds during a health crisis requires a multivalue ethical framework.”

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.

Think of the Children: A Discussion of the Rationale for and Implications of the Perspective Used for EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation

OBJECTIVES

The recently published EQ-5D-Y valuation protocol prescribes the general public values EQ-5D-Y health states for a 10-year-old child. This child perspective differs from the individual perspective applied for valuation of adult EQ-5D instruments. This article discusses the rationale for and implications of applying a child perspective for EQ-5D-Y health state valuation.

METHODS

This article was informed by an exploration of the normative and empirical literature on health state valuation. We identified and summarized key discussion points in a narrative review.

RESULTS

Although valuing EQ-5D-Y health states from an individual perspective is feasible, it may be problematic for several reasons. The use of a child perspective implies that-rather than valuing one's own health-someone else's health is valued. This may require the projection of one's own beliefs, expectations, and preferences on others, which could change the decision processes underlying the elicited preferences. Furthermore, because preferences are obtained for a 10-year-old child, it is unclear if this given age as well as other (missing) information on the described child beneficiary (should) affect valuation of EQ-5D-Y health states.

CONCLUSIONS

The change from an individual to a child perspective in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y will likely lead to differences in utilities. This has implications for the estimation of incremental health-related quality-of-life gains in economic evaluations of health technologies for children and adolescents and therefore might affect reimbursement decisions. Further research is necessary for gaining insight into the extent to which this impact is normatively and empirically justified.

Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures

Following the outbreak of COVID-19, governments took unprecedented measures to curb the spread of the virus. Public participation in decisions regarding (the relaxation of) these measures has been notably absent, despite being recommended in the literature. Here, as one of the exceptions, we report the results of 30,000 citizens advising the government on eight different possibilities for relaxing lockdown measures in the Netherlands. By making use of the novel method Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE), participants were asked to recommend which out of the eight options they prefer to be relaxed. Participants received information regarding the societal impacts of each relaxation option, such as the impact of the option on the healthcare system. The results of the PVE informed policymakers about people's preferences regarding (the impacts of) the relaxation options. For instance, we established that participants assign an equal value to a reduction of 100 deaths among citizens younger than 70 years and a reduction of 168 deaths among citizens older than 70 years. We show how these preferences can be used to rank options in terms of desirability. Citizens advised to relax lockdown measures, but not to the point at which the healthcare system becomes heavily overloaded. We found wide support for prioritising the re-opening of contact professions. Conversely, participants disfavoured options to relax restrictions for specific groups of citizens as they found it important that decisions lead to "unity" and not to "division". 80% of the participants state that PVE is a good method to let citizens participate in government decision-making on relaxing lockdown measures. Participants felt that they could express a nuanced opinion, communicate arguments, and appreciated the opportunity to evaluate relaxation options in comparison to each other while being informed about the consequences of each option. This increased their awareness of the dilemmas the government faces.

Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures

Following the outbreak of COVID-19, governments took unprecedented measures to curb the spread of the virus. Public participation in decisions regarding (the relaxation of) these measures has been notably absent, despite being recommended in the literature. Here, as one of the exceptions, we report the results of 30,000 citizens advising the government on eight different possibilities for relaxing lockdown measures in the Netherlands. By making use of the novel method Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE), participants were asked to recommend which out of the eight options they prefer to be relaxed. Participants received information regarding the societal impacts of each relaxation option, such as the impact of the option on the healthcare system. The results of the PVE informed policymakers about people's preferences regarding (the impacts of) the relaxation options. For instance, we established that participants assign an equal value to a reduction of 100 deaths among citizens younger than 70 years and a reduction of 168 deaths among citizens older than 70 years. We show how these preferences can be used to rank options in terms of desirability. Citizens advised to relax lockdown measures, but not to the point at which the healthcare system becomes heavily overloaded. We found wide support for prioritising the re-opening of contact professions. Conversely, participants disfavoured options to relax restrictions for specific groups of citizens as they found it important that decisions lead to "unity" and not to "division". 80% of the participants state that PVE is a good method to let citizens participate in government decision-making on relaxing lockdown measures. Participants felt that they could express a nuanced opinion, communicate arguments, and appreciated the opportunity to evaluate relaxation options in comparison to each other while being informed about the consequences of each option. This increased their awareness of the dilemmas the government faces.

Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society's trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown

We report and interpret preferences of a sample of the Dutch adult population for different strategies to end the so-called 'intelligent lockdown' which their government had put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a discrete choice experiment, we invited participants to make a series of choices between policy scenarios aimed at relaxing the lockdown, which were specified not in terms of their nature (e.g. whether or not to allow schools to re-open) but in terms of their effects along seven dimensions. These included health-related effects, but also impacts on the economy, education, and personal income. From the observed choices, we were able to infer the implicit trade-offs made by the Dutch between these policy effects. For example, we find that the average citizen, in order to avoid one fatality directly or indirectly related to COVID-19, is willing to accept a lasting lag in the educational performance of 18 children, or a lasting (>3 years) and substantial (>15%) reduction in net income of 77 households. We explore heterogeneity across individuals in terms of these trade-offs by means of latent class analysis. Our results suggest that most citizens are willing to trade-off health-related and other effects of the lockdown, implying a consequentialist ethical perspective. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that the elderly, known to be at relatively high risk of being affected by the virus, are relatively reluctant to sacrifice economic pain and educational disadvantages for the younger generation, to avoid fatalities. We also identify a so-called taboo trade-off aversion amongst a substantial share of our sample, being an aversion to accept morally problematic policies that simultaneously imply higher fatality numbers and lower taxes. We explain various ways in which our results can be of value to policy makers in the context of the COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Mobile and Online Health Information: Exploring Digital Media Use among Austrian Parents

In today’s digitalized world, most parents are Internet-savvy and use online sources for child health information, mainly due to the 24/7 availability of advice. However, parents are often not specifically trained to identify reliable, evidence-based sources of information. In this cross-sectional online survey among a purposive, non-probabilistic sample of Austrian parents (n = 90, 81.1% females), we assessed aspects of health app use and family policy benefits-related and scenario-based Internet seeking behavior. We found that the surveyed parents showed a high health app use. The participants indicated that they prefer online information seeking to any other option in a scenario describing that their child would be sick at after-work hours, with social media channels being the least preferred source of online information. Mothers and younger parents were more likely to retrieve online information on family policy benefits. With the smartphone in everybody’s pocket, parents seemed to rely on mobile and online content when searching for child health information. Pediatricians are best suited to decide what treatment fits the child or their current medical condition, but nowadays they face increasing numbers of pre-informed parents seeking health information online. Provision of targeted parental education and guidance through the online information jungle could effectively empower parents and smooth personal and digital contacts in the delicate doctor–parent–child triangle.

The relative value of different QALY types

The oft-applied assumption in the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in economic evaluation, that all QALYs are valued equally, has been questioned from the outset. The literature has focused on differential values of a QALY based on equity considerations such as the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the QALYs. However, a key characteristic which may affect the value of a QALY is the type of QALY itself. QALY gains can be generated purely by gains in survival, purely by improvements in quality of life, or by changes in both. Using a discrete choice experiment and a new methodological approach to the derivation of relative weights, we undertake the first direct and systematic exploration of the relative weight accorded different QALY types and do so in the presence of equity considerations; age and severity. Results provide new evidence against the normative starting point that all QALYs are valued equally.

Commentary: Why Has Uptake of Pneumococcal Vaccines for Children Been So Slow? The Perils of Undervaluation

Pediatric pneumococcal disease exacts a substantial burden on global health, much of which is vaccine-preventable. Despite this considerable burden and the demonstrably high efficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), the overall level of PCV uptake remains concerningly low, especially compared with that of other childhood-recommended vaccines, such as tuberculosis and polio. A broad set of plausible explanations exists for this low uptake, including logistical challenges, psychosocial factors and affordability. One additional and systematic cause of low uptake, which is the focus of our discussion, is economists' and policymakers' tendency to undervalue vaccination in general by adopting a narrow health sector perspective when performing economic evaluations of vaccines. We present an alternative, societal framework for economic evaluations that encompasses a broader set of socioeconomic benefits in addition to health benefits. Quantifying a more comprehensive taxonomy of PCV's benefits will help to address potential undervaluation and may be sufficient not only to justify recommendation and reimbursement but also to stimulate efforts and investment toward closing coverage gaps.

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.

Exploring perceptions on medical app use in clinical communication among Austrian physicians: Results of a validation study

Physicians increasingly use medical applications to facilitate clinical information management. The respective effect on clinical communication and quality of healthcare provision has not been studied in the Austrian context so far. Thus, the current cross-sectional online study analyzed prevalent medical applications use and views on clinical communication competence in everyday medical practice among Austrian physicians (n = 151) and validated the survey tool. More than half of the participants used medical applications in daily clinical practice. The top three benefits of medical applications use were higher quality of healthcare, location-independent health service access, and higher efficiency in healthcare resource allocation. Moreover, study participants felt that communication competence acquired during medical studies inadequately prepared them for daily clinical practices. Medical applications use certainly affects the therapeutic alliance between patients and physician. This study supports the importance of initiating an open, constructive discussion among healthcare stakeholders and developing according to evidence-based guidelines.

Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?

BACKGROUND

Priority setting in healthcare can be guided by both efficiency and equity principles. The latter principle is often explicated in terms of disease severity and, for example, defined as absolute or proportional shortfall. These severity operationalizations do not explicitly consider patients' age, even though age may be inextricably related to severity and an equity-relevant characteristic.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the relative strength of societal preferences for severity and age for informing allocation decisions in healthcare.

METHODS

We elicited preferences for severity and age in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (N = 1025) by applying choice tasks and person-trade-off tasks in a design in which severity levels and ages varied both separately and simultaneously between patient groups. We calculated person trade-off ratios and, in addition, applied ordinary least squares regression models to aid interpretation of the ratios when both severity and age varied.

RESULTS

Respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 2.46-3.50) to reimbursing treatment for relatively more severely ill and younger patients when preferences for both were elicited separately. When preferences were elicited simultaneously, respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 1.98 and 2.42) to reimbursing treatment for relatively younger patients, irrespective of patients' severity levels. Ratios varied depending on severity level and age and were generally higher when the difference in severity and age was larger between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that severity operationalizations and equity weights based on severity alone may not align with societal preferences. Adjusting decision-making frameworks to reflect age-related societal preferences should be considered.