Jennifer A Whitty1, Peter Littlejohns2. 1. School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Logan, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: j.whitty@uq.edu.au. 2. Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia. APPROACH: The processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting. FINDINGS: Transparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens' Jury.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia. APPROACH: The processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting. FINDINGS: Transparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens' Jury.
Authors: Long Khanh-Dao Le; Scott Richards-Jones; Mary Lou Chatterton; Lidia Engel; David Lawrence; Chris Stevenson; Genevieve Pepin; Julie Ratcliffe; Michael Sawyer; Cathrine Mihalopoulos Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer A Whitty; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul Harris; Rachael Krinks; Paul A Scuffham Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lesley Chim; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Kelly; Wendy Lipworth; Dyfrig A Hughes; Martin R Stockler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Peter Littlejohns; Katharina Kieslich; Albert Weale; Emma Tumilty; Georgina Richardson; Tim Stokes; Robin Gauld; Paul Scuffham Journal: J Health Organ Manag Date: 2018-11-22