The general public's willingness to pay for tax increases to support unrestricted access to an Alzheimer's disease medication

The Patient Voice: Exploring Treatment Preferences in Participants with Mild Cognitive Concerns to Inform Regulatory Decision Making

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility of developing a discrete-choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for a treatment to delay cognitive decline among people with a clinical syndrome consistent with early Alzheimer's disease, including the development of self-reported screening criteria to recruit the sample.

METHODS

Using input from qualitative interviews, we developed a discrete-choice experiment survey containing a multifaceted beneficial treatment attribute related to slowing cognitive decline for respondents with self-reported cognitive concerns. In two rounds of in-person pretest interviews, we tested and revised the survey text and discrete-choice experiment questions, including examples, language, and levels associated with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, along with a set of de novo self-reported questions for identifying respondents who had neither too mild nor too advanced cognitive decline. Self-reported memory and thinking problems were compared with symptoms from studies of patients with early Alzheimer's disease (e.g., mild cognitive impairment, mild Alzheimer's disease) to determine whether those studies' recruited patients were similar to our anticipated target population. Round 1 pretest interviews resulted in significant simplifications in the survey instrument, revisions to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and revisions to the screening process. In round 2 of the pretest interviews, the ability of participants to provide consistent responses to the self-reported screening questions was further assessed. In addition, to evaluate participants' ability to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey, two interviewers independently evaluated each participant's ability to make trade-offs in the discrete-choice experiment questions and to understand the content of the survey.

RESULTS

Round 1 (15 pretest interviews) identified challenges with the survey instrument related to the complexity of the choice questions. The screening process did not screen out seven respondents with more advanced cognitive decline, as determined qualitatively by the interviewers and by these participants' inability to complete the survey. The survey instrument and screening criteria were revised, and an initial online screener was added to the screening process before round 2 pretests. In round 2 pretests, 12 participants reported cognitive problems similar to the target population for the survey but were judged able to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed self-reported screening criteria that identified a sample of individuals with memory and thinking concerns who were similar to individuals with clinical symptoms of early Alzheimer's disease and who were able to independently complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey. Quantitative patient preference studies provide important information on patients' willingness to trade off treatment benefits/risks. Adapting the technique for patients with cognitive decline requires careful testing and adjustments to survey instruments. This work suggests it is the severity of cognitive impairment, rather than its presence, that determines the ability to complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey.

A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting

BACKGROUND

There is current interest in incorporating weights based on public preferences for health and healthcare into priority-setting decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to explore the extent to which public preferences and trade-offs for priority-setting criteria have been quantified, and to describe the study contexts and preference elicitation methods employed.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in April 2013 to identify empirical studies eliciting the stated preferences of the public for the provision of healthcare in a priority-setting context. Studies are described in terms of (i) the stated preference approaches used, (ii) the priority-setting levels and contexts, and (iii) the criteria identified as important and their relative importance.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies applying 40 elicitation methods reported in 41 papers met the inclusion criteria. The discrete choice experiment method was most commonly applied (n = 18, 45.0 %), but other approaches, including contingent valuation and the person trade-off, were also used. Studies prioritised health systems (n = 4, 10.2 %), policies/programmes/services/interventions (n = 16, 41.0 %), or patient groups (n = 19, 48.7 %). Studies generally confirmed the importance of a wide range of process, non-health and patient-related characteristics in priority setting in selected contexts, alongside health outcomes. However, inconsistencies were observed for the relative importance of some prioritisation criteria, suggesting context and/or elicitation approach matter.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, findings suggest caution in directly incorporating public preferences as weights for priority setting unless the methods used to elicit the weights can be shown to be appropriate and robust in the priority-setting context.

Caregivers' willingness-to-pay for Alzheimer's disease medications in Canada

We studied caregivers' willingness-to-pay for Alzheimer's disease drug therapy. We recruited 216 caregivers of persons with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease and presented them with four scenarios describing a hypothetical Alzheimer's disease medication. The scenarios described the medication as capable of either treating the symptoms of disease or modifying the course of disease. The scenarios also presented two different probabilities of adverse effects occurrence, i.e., 0% or 30%. Most caregivers said they would pay out-of-pocket for the medication, with support for such payment ranging from 68% to 93%, depending on the specific scenario. The highest level of support was for the 'disease modifying and no adverse effects' scenario, while the lowest level was for the 'symptom treatment and 30% chance of adverse effects' scenario. On average, caregivers' monthly willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for the medication ranged from $214 to $277 (Canadian dollars). Dollar amounts were highest for the 'disease modifying and no adverse effects' scenario and lowest for the 'symptom treatment and 30% chance of adverse effects' scenario. Support for out-of-pocket payment and specific dollar amounts were highest when the medication did not involve adverse effects. Caregivers placed more value on the absence of adverse effects than on drug efficacy.