Tatjana E MacLeod1, Anthony H Harris2, Ajay Mahal3. 1. Centre for Health Economics, Level 2, Building 75, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. tatjana.macleod@monash.edu. 2. Centre for Health Economics, Level 2, Building 75, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. 3. The Finkel Chair of Global Health, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing focus on patient-centred care has encouraged the inclusion of patient and public input into payer drug reimbursement decisions. Yet, little is known about patient/public priorities for funding high-cost medicines, and how they compare to payer priorities applied in public funding decisions for new cancer drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify and compare the funding preferences of cancer patients and the general public against the criteria used by payers making cancer drug funding decisions. METHODS: A thorough review of the empirical, peer-reviewed English literature was conducted. Information sources were PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, and EconLit. Eligible studies (1) assessed the cancer drug funding preferences of patients, the general public or payers, (2) had pre-defined measures of funding preference, and (3) had outcomes with attributes or measures of 'value'. The quality of included studies was evaluated using a health technology assessment-based assessment tool, followed by extraction of general study characteristics and funding preferences, which were categorized using an established WHO-based framework. RESULTS: Twenty-five preference studies were retrieved (11 quantitative, seven qualitative, seven mixed-methods). Most studies were published from 2005 onward, with the oldest dating back to 1997. Two studies evaluated both patient and public perspectives, giving 27 total funding perspectives (41 % payer, 33 % public, 26 % patients). Of 41 identified funding criteria, payers consider the most (35), the general public considers fewer (23), and patients consider the fewest (12). We identify four unique patient criteria: financial protection, access to medical information, autonomy in treatment decision making, and the 'value of hope'. Sixteen countries/jurisdictions were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that (1) payers prioritize efficiency (health gains per dollar), while citizens (patients and the general public) prioritize equity (equal access to cancer medicines independent of cost or effectiveness), (2) citizens prioritize few criteria relevant to payers, and (3) citizens prioritize several criteria not considered by payers. This can explain why payer and citizen priorities clash when new cancer medicines are denied public funding.
BACKGROUND: The growing focus on patient-centred care has encouraged the inclusion of patient and public input into payer drug reimbursement decisions. Yet, little is known about patient/public priorities for funding high-cost medicines, and how they compare to payer priorities applied in public funding decisions for new cancer drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify and compare the funding preferences of cancerpatients and the general public against the criteria used by payers making cancer drug funding decisions. METHODS: A thorough review of the empirical, peer-reviewed English literature was conducted. Information sources were PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, and EconLit. Eligible studies (1) assessed the cancer drug funding preferences of patients, the general public or payers, (2) had pre-defined measures of funding preference, and (3) had outcomes with attributes or measures of 'value'. The quality of included studies was evaluated using a health technology assessment-based assessment tool, followed by extraction of general study characteristics and funding preferences, which were categorized using an established WHO-based framework. RESULTS: Twenty-five preference studies were retrieved (11 quantitative, seven qualitative, seven mixed-methods). Most studies were published from 2005 onward, with the oldest dating back to 1997. Two studies evaluated both patient and public perspectives, giving 27 total funding perspectives (41 % payer, 33 % public, 26 % patients). Of 41 identified funding criteria, payers consider the most (35), the general public considers fewer (23), and patients consider the fewest (12). We identify four unique patient criteria: financial protection, access to medical information, autonomy in treatment decision making, and the 'value of hope'. Sixteen countries/jurisdictions were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that (1) payers prioritize efficiency (health gains per dollar), while citizens (patients and the general public) prioritize equity (equal access to cancer medicines independent of cost or effectiveness), (2) citizens prioritize few criteria relevant to payers, and (3) citizens prioritize several criteria not considered by payers. This can explain why payer and citizen priorities clash when new cancer medicines are denied public funding.
Authors: Marcial Velasco; Matthias Perleth; Michael Drummond; Felix Gürtner; Torben Jørgensen; Albert Jovell; Jim Malone; Alric Rüther; Claudia Wild Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Seth A Seabury; Dana P Goldman; J Ross Maclean; John R Penrod; Darius N Lakdawalla Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Kim Pauwels; Isabelle Huys; Minne Casteels; Yvonne Denier; Martina Vandebroek; Steven Simoens Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.561