To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies

National Investment Framework for Revitalizing the R&D Collaborative Ecosystem of Sustainable Smart Agriculture

Demographic, economic, and environmental issues, including climate change events, aging population, growing urban-rural disparity, and the COVID-19 pandemic, contribute to vulnerabilities in agricultural production and food systems. South Korea has designated smart agriculture as a national strategic investment, expanding investment in research and development (R&D) to develop and commercialize convergence technologies, thus extending sustainable smart agriculture and strengthening global competitiveness. Hence, this study probes the status of smart agricultural R&D investment from the perspectives of public funds, research areas, technologies, regions, organizations, and stakeholders. It examines 5646 public R&D projects worth USD 1408.5 million on smart agriculture in 17 regions and eight technology clusters from 2015 to 2021. Further, it proposes a pool of potential collaborative networks via a case study of strawberry, a representative veritable crop inspiring smart agriculture, to demonstrate the study framework’s usefulness in promoting smart agriculture and establishing a sustainable R&D collaboration ecosystem. The proposed framework, accordingly, allows stakeholders to understand and monitor the status of R&D investment from various perspectives. Moreover, given the insight into the tasks belonging to technical areas and regions that require sustainable cooperation in smart agriculture, central and local governments develop policies to reinforce sustainable smart-farming models.

What Is Value in Health and Healthcare? A Systematic Literature Review of Value Assessment Frameworks

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate how value is defined and measured in existing value assessment frameworks (VAFs) in healthcare.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination from 2008 to 2019. We also performed backward citation chaining of included studies and previously published systematic reviews. Studies reporting the development of a VAF in healthcare were included. For each included framework, we extracted and compared the context, target users, intended use, methods used to identify value attributes, description of the attributes, and attribute scoring approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 8151 articles screened, 57 VAFs were included. The value attributes included in 55 VAFs were grouped into 9 categories: health benefits (n = 53, 96%), affordability (n = 45, 82%), societal impact (n = 42, 76%), burden of disease (n = 36, 65%), quality of evidence (n = 32, 58%), cost-effectiveness (n = 31, 56%), ethics and equity (n = 27, 49%), unmet needs (n = 21, 38%), and innovation (n = 15, 27%). The remaining 2 VAFs used broad attributes or user-defined attributes. Literature review was the main approach to identify value attributes in 36 VAFs. Patient or public was engaged through the development of only 11 VAFs. Weighting has been used to score 29 VAFs, of which 19 used the methods of multicriteria decision analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial variations in defining and measuring value. A noticeable weakness of existing VAFs is that patient or public engagement was generally very limited or missing in framework development process. Existing VAFs tend to aggregate multiple value attributes into a single index for decision making.

Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Healthcare spending has grown over the last decades in all developed countries. Making hard choices for investments in a rational, evidence-informed, systematic, transparent and legitimate manner constitutes an important objective. Yet, most scientific work in this area has focused on developing/improving prescriptive approaches for decision making and presenting case studies. The present work aimed to describe existing practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) within the context of publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries and inform areas for further improvement and research.

METHODS

An online qualitative survey, developed from a theoretical framework, was administered with decision-makers and academics from 18 countries. 450 individuals were invited and 58 participated (13% of response rate).

RESULTS

We found evidence that resource allocation is still largely carried out based on historical patterns and through ad hoc decisions, despite the widely held understanding that decisions should be based on multiple explicit criteria. Health technology assessment (HTA) was the tool most commonly indicated by respondents as a formal priority setting strategy. Several approaches were reported to have been used, with special emphasis on Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), but limited evidence exists on their evaluation and routine use. Disinvestment frameworks are still very rare. There is increasing convergence on the use of multiple types of evidence to judge the value of investment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to establish formal and explicit processes and rationales for decision-making in priority setting and resource allocation have been still rare outside the HTA realm. Our work indicates the need of development/improvement of decision-making frameworks in PSRA that: 1) have well-defined steps; 2) are based on multiple criteria; 3) are capable of assessing the opportunity costs involved; 4) focus on achieving higher value and not just on adoption; 5) engage involved stakeholders and the general public; 6) make good use and appraisal of all evidence available; and 6) emphasize transparency, legitimacy, and fairness.

Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks

BACKGROUND

Due to growing expenditures, health systems have been pushed to improve decision-making practices on resource allocation. This study aimed to identify which practices of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) have been used in healthcare systems of high-income countries.

METHODS

A scoping literature review (2007-2019) was conducted to map empirical PSRA activities. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. That was complemented with a gray literature and horizontal scanning. A narrative synthesis was carried out to make sense of the existing literature and current state of PSRA practices in healthcare.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred eighty five references were found in the peer-reviewed literature and 25 papers were selected for full-review. We identified three major types of decision-making framework in PSRA: 1) Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA); 2) Health Technology Assessment (HTA); and 3) Multiple-criteria value assessment. Our narrative synthesis indicates these formal frameworks of priority setting and resource allocation have been mostly implemented in episodic exercises with poor follow-up and evaluation. There seems to be growing interest for explicit robust rationales and ample stakeholder involvement, but that has not been the norm in the process of allocating resources within healthcare systems of high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

No single dominate framework for PSRA appeared as the preferred approach across jurisdictions, but common elements exist both in terms of process and structure. Decision-makers worldwide can draw on our work in designing and implementing PSRA processes in their contexts.

The implementation of health technology assessment principles in public decisions concerning orphan drugs

PURPOSE

Over the last few years, the share of public spending for orphan drugs (ODs) has increased in several western countries, raising concern on the exemptions granted to this sector with respect to the implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) principles. The aim of this paper is to shed light on both the HTA criteria adopted and the international agreements implemented in the OD regulation, given the new challenges imposed on western countries by a growing number of therapies for rare diseases.

METHODS

We carried out a literature review to analyse the development of the international debate on the adaptability of HTA criteria for the OD assessment and regulation. The time span lies between January 1990 and May 2018, and the policies considered relate to both market authorization and reimbursement decisions within western countries. We focus specifically on HTA criteria in some of the dimensions included in the Core Model of the European net for HTA (EUnetHTA).

RESULTS

OD high prices, the absence of clarity on the possible high revenues realized by the distribution of a new OD outside the national borders, the risk that - once marketed - a new OD can be used to treat common diseases, are all issues that raise concern on OD regulation and have to be carefully monitored by policymakers in the next future.

CONCLUSIONS

Across western countries, the preferential track granted to ODs in the implementation of HTA principles is not homogeneous, but fragmented and differentiated. The need for common rules at an international level is underlined, with a view to assessing the sustainability of a sector which, due to this regulatory void, can lend itself to producers' strategic and opportunistic behaviours.

The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study

OBJECTIVES

State governments often face capped budgets that can restrict expenditure on health technologies and their evaluation, yet many technologies are introduced to practice through state-funded institutions such as hospitals, rather than through national evaluation mechanisms. This research aimed to identify the criteria, evidence, and standards used by South Australian committee members to recommend funding for high-cost health technologies.

METHODS

We undertook 8 semi-structured interviews and 2 meeting observations with members of state-wide committees that have a mandate to consider the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-cost health technologies.

RESULTS

Safety and effectiveness were fundamental criteria for decision makers, who were also concerned with increasing consistency in care and equitable access to technologies. Committee members often consider evidence that is limited in quantity and quality; however, they perceive evaluations to be rigorous and sufficient for decision making. Precise standards for safety, effective, and cost-effectiveness could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of new technologies at the state level is grounded in the desire to improve health outcomes and equity of access for patients. High quality evidence is often limited. The impact funding decisions have on population health is unclear due to limited use of cost-effectiveness analysis and unclear cost-effectiveness standards.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the ninth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The disinvestment literature has broadened considerably over the past decade; however there is a significant gap regarding systematic, integrated, organisation-wide approaches. This debate paper presents a discussion of the conceptual aspects of disinvestment from the local perspective.

DISCUSSION

Four themes are discussed: Terminology and concepts, Motivation and purpose, Relationships with other healthcare improvement paradigms, and Challenges to disinvestment. There are multiple definitions for disinvestment, multiple concepts underpin the definitions and multiple alternative terms convey these concepts; some definitions overlap and some are mutually exclusive; and there are systematic discrepancies in use between the research and practice settings. Many authors suggest that the term 'disinvestment' should be avoided due to perceived negative connotations and propose that the concept be considered alongside investment in the context of all resource allocation decisions and approached from the perspective of optimising health care. This may provide motivation for change, reduce disincentives and avoid some of the ethical dilemmas inherent in other disinvestment approaches. The impetus and rationale for disinvestment activities are likely to affect all aspects of the process from identification and prioritisation through to implementation and evaluation but have not been widely discussed. A need for mechanisms, frameworks, methods and tools for disinvestment is reported. However there are several health improvement paradigms with mature frameworks and validated methods and tools that are widely-used and well-accepted in local health services that already undertake disinvestment-type activities and could be expanded and built upon. The nature of disinvestment brings some particular challenges for policy-makers, managers, health professionals and researchers. There is little evidence of successful implementation of 'disinvestment' projects in the local setting, however initiatives to remove or replace technologies and practices have been successfully achieved through evidence-based practice, quality and safety activities, and health service improvement programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the construct of 'disinvestment' may be problematic at the local level. A new definition and two potential approaches to disinvestment are proposed to stimulate further research and discussion.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation

Background

This is the tenth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. After more than a decade of research, there is little published evidence of active and successful disinvestment. The paucity of frameworks, methods and tools is reported to be a factor in the lack of success. However there are clear and consistent messages in the literature that can be used to inform development of a framework for operationalising disinvestment. This paper, along with the conceptual review of disinvestment in Paper 9 of this series, aims to integrate the findings of the SHARE Program with the existing disinvestment literature to address the lack of information regarding systematic organisation-wide approaches to disinvestment at the local health service level.

Discussion

A framework for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting is proposed. Definitions for essential terms and key concepts underpinning the framework have been made explicit to address the lack of consistent terminology. Given the negative connotations of the word ‘disinvestment’ and the problems inherent in considering disinvestment in isolation, the basis for the proposed framework is ‘resource allocation’ to address the spectrum of decision-making from investment to disinvestment. The focus is positive: optimising healthcare, improving health outcomes, using resources effectively.

The framework is based on three components: a program for decision-making, projects to implement decisions and evaluate outcomes, and research to understand and improve the program and project activities. The program consists of principles for decision-making and settings that provide opportunities to introduce systematic prompts and triggers to initiate disinvestment. The projects follow the steps in the disinvestment process. Potential methods and tools are presented, however the framework does not stipulate project design or conduct; allowing application of any theories, methods or tools at each step. Barriers are discussed and examples illustrating constituent elements are provided.

Conclusions

The framework can be employed at network, institutional, departmental, ward or committee level. It is proposed as an organisation-wide application, embedded within existing systems and processes, which can be responsive to needs and priorities at the level of implementation. It can be used in policy, management or clinical contexts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment (HTA) coverage recommendations differ across countries for the same drugs. Unlike previous studies, this study adopts a mixed methods research design to investigate, in a systematic manner, these differences.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for ten orphan drugs appraised in England (NICE), Scotland (SMC), Sweden (TLV) and France (HAS) (N = 35) were compared using a validated methodological framework that breaks down these complex decision processes into stages facilitating their understanding, analysis and comparison, namely: (1) the clinical/cost-effectiveness evidence, (2) its interpretation (e.g. part of the deliberative process) and (3) influence on the final decision. This allowed qualitative and quantitative identification of the criteria driving recommendations and highlighted cross-country differences.

RESULTS

Six out of ten drugs received diverging HTA recommendations. Reasons for cross-country differences included heterogeneity in the evidence appraised, in the interpretation of the same evidence, and in the different ways of dealing with the same uncertainty. These may have been influenced by agency-specific evidentiary, risk and value preferences, or stakeholder input. "Other considerations" (e.g. severity, orphan status) and other decision modulators (e.g. patient access schemes, lower discount rates, restrictions, re-assessments) also rendered uncertainty and cost-effectiveness estimates more acceptable. The different HTA approaches (clinical versus cost-effectiveness) and ways identified of dealing with orphan drug particularities also had implications on the final decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research contributes to better understanding the drivers of these complex decisions and why countries make different decisions. It also contributed to identifying those factors beyond the standard clinical and cost-effectiveness tools used in HTA, and their role in shaping these decisions.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the seventh in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately.

METHODS

Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes.

RESULTS

Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Purpose Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations (HTAOs) decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the potential drivers of public engagement from an organizational perspective. Design/methodology/approach The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTAOs. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice. Findings Determining the type of public engagement undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors included the: perceived complexity of the policy-making issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influences of these factors vary depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective. Originality/value Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTAO.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment.

METHODS

Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed.

RESULTS

Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the third in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Leaders in a large Australian health service planned to establish an organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment. In order to introduce new systems and processes for disinvestment into existing decision-making infrastructure, we aimed to understand where, how and by whom resource allocation decisions were made, implemented and evaluated. We also sought the knowledge and experience of staff regarding previous disinvestment activities.

Methods

Structured interviews, workshops and document analysis were used to collect information from multiple sources in an environmental scan of decision-making systems and processes. Findings were synthesised using a theoretical framework.

Results

Sixty-eight respondents participated in interviews and workshops. Eight components in the process of resource allocation were identified: Governance, Administration, Stakeholder engagement, Resources, Decision-making, Implementation, Evaluation and, where appropriate, Reinvestment of savings. Elements of structure and practice for each component are described and a new framework was developed to capture the relationships between them. A range of decision-makers, decision-making settings, type and scope of decisions, criteria used, and strengths, weaknesses, barriers and enablers are outlined. The term ‘disinvestment’ was not used in health service decision-making. Previous projects that involved removal, reduction or restriction of current practices were driven by quality and safety issues, evidence-based practice or a need to find resource savings and not by initiatives where the primary aim was to disinvest. Measuring resource savings is difficult, in some situations impossible. Savings are often only theoretical as resources released may be utilised immediately by patients waiting for beds, clinic appointments or surgery. Decision-making systems and processes for resource allocation are more complex than assumed in previous studies.

Conclusion

There is a wide range of decision-makers, settings, scope and type of decisions, and criteria used for allocating resources within a single institution. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report this level of detail and to introduce eight components of the resource allocation process identified within a local health service.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2207-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the second in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Rising healthcare costs, continuing advances in health technologies and recognition of ineffective practices and systematic waste are driving disinvestment of health technologies and clinical practices that offer little or no benefit in order to maximise outcomes from existing resources. However there is little information to guide regional health services or individual facilities in how they might approach disinvestment locally. This paper outlines the investigation of potential settings and methods for decision-making about disinvestment in the context of an Australian health service.

Methods

Methods include a literature review on the concepts and terminology relating to disinvestment, a survey of national and international researchers, and interviews and workshops with local informants. A conceptual framework was drafted and refined with stakeholder feedback.

Results

There is a lack of common terminology regarding definitions and concepts related to disinvestment and no guidance for an organisation-wide systematic approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare service.

A summary of issues from the literature and respondents highlight the lack of theoretical knowledge and practical experience and provide a guide to the information required to develop future models or methods for disinvestment in the local context.

A conceptual framework was developed. Three mechanisms that provide opportunities to introduce disinvestment decisions into health service systems and processes were identified. Presented in order of complexity, time to achieve outcomes and resources required they include 1) Explicit consideration of potential disinvestment in routine decision-making, 2) Proactive decision-making about disinvestment driven by available evidence from published research and local data, and 3) Specific exercises in priority setting and system redesign.

Conclusion

This framework identifies potential opportunities to initiate disinvestment activities in a systematic integrated approach that can be applied across a whole organisation using transparent, evidence-based methods. Incorporating considerations for disinvestment into existing decision-making systems and processes might be achieved quickly with minimal cost; however establishment of new systems requires research into appropriate methods and provision of appropriate skills and resources to deliver them.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2211-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting

Background

This paper reports the process of establishing a transparent, accountable, evidence-based program for introduction of new technologies and clinical practices (TCPs) in a large Australian healthcare network. Many countries have robust evidence-based processes for assessment of new TCPs at national level. However many decisions are made by local health services where the resources and expertise to undertake health technology assessment (HTA) are limited and a lack of structure, process and transparency has been reported.

Methods

An evidence-based model for process change was used to establish the program. Evidence from research and local data, experience of health service staff and consumer perspectives were incorporated at each of four steps: identifying the need for change, developing a proposal, implementation and evaluation. Checklists assessing characteristics of success, factors for sustainability and barriers and enablers were applied and implementation strategies were based on these findings. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used for process and outcome evaluation. An action research approach underpinned ongoing refinement to systems, processes and resources.

Results

A Best Practice Guide developed from the literature and stakeholder consultation identified seven program components: Governance, Decision-Making, Application Process, Monitoring and Reporting, Resources, Administration, and Evaluation and Quality Improvement. The aims of transparency and accountability were achieved. The processes are explicit, decisions published, outcomes recorded and activities reported. The aim of ascertaining rigorous evidence-based information for decision-making was not achieved in all cases. Applicants proposing new TCPs provided the evidence from research literature and local data however the information was often incorrect or inadequate, overestimating benefits and underestimating costs. Due to these limitations the initial application process was replaced by an Expression of Interest from applicants followed by a rigorous HTA by independent in-house experts.

Conclusion

The program is generalisable to most health care organisations. With one exception, the components would be achievable with minimal additional resources; the lack of skills and resources required for HTA will limit effective application in many settings. A toolkit containing details of the processes and sample materials is provided to facilitate replication or local adaptation by those wishing to establish a similar program.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1178-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Much attention in recent years has been given to the topic of public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. HTA organizations spend substantial resources and time on undertaking public engagement, and numerous studies have examined challenges and barriers to engagement in the decision-making process however uncertainty remains as to optimal methods to incorporate the views of the public in HTA decision-making. Little research has been done to ascertain whether current engagement processes align with public preferences and to what extent their desire for engagement is dependent on the question being asked by decision-makers or the characteristics of the decision. This study will examine public preferences for engagement in Australian HTA decision-making using an exploratory mixed methods design.

METHODS/DESIGN

The aims of this study are to: 1) identify characteristics about HTA decisions that are important to the public in determining whether public engagement should be undertaken on a particular topic, 2) determine which decision characteristics influence public preferences for the extent, or type of public engagement, and 3) describe reasons underpinning these preferences. Focus group participants from the general community, aged 18-70 years, will be purposively sampled from the Australian population to ensure a wide range of demographic groups. Each focus group will include a general discussion on public engagement as well as a ranking exercise using a modified nominal group technique (NGT). The NGT will inform the design of a discrete choice study to quantitatively assess public preferences for engagement in HTA decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The proposed research seeks to investigate under what circumstances and how the public would like their views and preferences to be considered in health technology assessments. HTA organizations regularly make decisions about when and how public engagement should occur but without consideration of the public's preferences on the method and extent of engagement. This information has the potential to assist decision-makers in tailoring engagement approaches, and may be particularly useful in decisions with potential for conflict where clarification of public values and preferences could strengthen the decision-making process.

Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework

BACKGROUND

The rate of development of new orphan drugs continues to grow. As a result, reimbursing orphan drugs on an exceptional basis is increasingly difficult to sustain from a health system perspective. An understanding of the value that societies attach to providing orphan drugs at the expense of other health technologies is now recognised as an important input to policy debates.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to scope the social value arguments that have been advanced relating to the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and to locate these within a coherent decision-making framework to aid reimbursement decisions in the presence of limited healthcare resources.

METHODS

A scoping review of the peer reviewed and grey literature was undertaken, consisting of seven phases: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting, extracting and tabulating data; (5) analyzing data; (6) consulting relevant experts; and (7) presenting results. The points within decision processes where the identified value arguments would be incorporated were then located. This mapping was used to construct a framework characterising the distinct role of each value in informing decision making.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 19 candidate decision factors, most of which can be characterised as either value-bearing or 'opportunity cost'-determining, and also a number of value propositions and pertinent sources of preference information. We were able to synthesize these into a coherent decision-making framework.

CONCLUSION

Our framework may be used to structure policy discussions and to aid transparency about the values underlying reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. These values ought to be consistently applied to all technologies and populations affected by the decision.

Priority setting in neurosurgery as exemplified by an everyday challenge

BACKGROUND

The allocation of limited healthcare resources poses a constant challenge for clinicians. One everyday example is the prioritization of elective neurosurgical operating room (OR) time in circumstances where cancellations may be encountered. The bioethical framework, Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) may inform such decisions by establishing conditions that should be met for ethically-justifiable priority setting.

OBJECTIVE

Here, we describe our experience in implementing A4R to guide decisions regarding elective OR prioritization.

METHODS

The four primary expectations of the A4R process are: (1) relevance, namely achieved by support for the process and criteria for decisions amongst all stakeholders; (2) publicity, satisfied by the effective communication of the results of the deliberation; (3) challengeability through a fair appeals process; and (4) Oversight of the process to ensure that opportunities for its improvement are available.

RESULTS

A4R may be applied to inform OR time prioritization, with benefits to patients, surgeons and the institution itself. We discuss various case-, patient-, and surgeon-related factors that may be incorporated into the decision-making process. Furthermore, we explore challenges encountered in the implementation of this process, including the need for timely neurosurgical decision-making and the presence of hospital-based power imbalances.

CONCLUSION

The authors recommend the implementation of a fair, deliberative process to inform priority setting in neurosurgery, as demonstrated by the application of the A4R framework to allocate limited OR time.

Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation

BACKGROUND

Identifying treatments that offer value and value for money is becoming increasingly important, with interest in how health technology assessment (HTA) and decision makers can take appropriate account of what is of value to patients and to society, and in the relationship between innovation and assessments of value.

METHODS

This study summarizes points from an Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum discussion, drawing on presentations, discussions among attendees, and background papers.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Various perspectives on value were considered; most place patient health at the core of value. Wider elements of value comprise other benefits for: patients; caregivers; the health and social care systems; and society. Most decision-making systems seek to take account of similar elements of value, although they are assessed and combined in different ways. Judgment in decisions remains important and cannot be replaced by mathematical approaches. There was discussion of the value of innovation and of the effects of value assessments on innovation. Discussion also included moving toward "progressive health system decision making," an ongoing process whereby evidence-based decisions on use would be made at various stages in the technology lifecycle. Five actions are identified: (i) development of a general framework for the definition and assessment of value; development by HTA/coverage bodies and regulators of (ii) disease-specific guidance and (iii) further joint scientific advice for industry on demonstrating value; (iv) development of a framework for progressive licensing, usage, and reimbursement; and (v) promoting work to better adapt HTA, coverage, and procurement approaches to medical devices.

Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?

BACKGROUND

Interest in citizens' juries for eliciting the views of the public to inform coverage decisions on new health technologies has grown. However, evaluative information, particularly regarding their short- and/or longer-term impact on participants' views is limited. As citizens' juries can be resource intensive, such information is required to make 'evidence-based' decisions about their use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of citizens' juries on participants' preferences for the distribution of health care across populations over time.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Two citizens' juries, involving a different representative sample of the public, were held. Participants completed identical questionnaires before (T1), directly after (T2) and 6 weeks following the jury (T3). Questionnaires comprised rating, ranking and choice-based questions related to four characteristics of competing patient populations (age, current health, life expectancy without treatment and health gain resulting from an intervention). Semi-structured telephone interviews were also conducted to explore the impact of the jury on participants' distributive preferences. Changes in responses to the self-administered survey over the three time points were assessed quantitatively, while interview questions were analysed using qualitative techniques.

RESULTS

No significant differences in responses to rating questions were observed. Pre/post-jury changes in the rankings of two factors were statistically significant in one of the juries. However, in both juries, T1-T2 changes in responses to several of the choice-based questions reached statistical significance. The number was lower between T2 and T3, suggesting that jurors retained their views. According to findings from the interviews, jurors' views changed or were clarified through participation in the jury.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be evidence suggesting that the views of individuals who participate in citizens' juries change as a result of the experience, and those 'informed' views are sustained.