Literature DB >> 27803596

The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison.

C Skedgel1.   

Abstract

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) is responsible for making coverage recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans about cancer drugs. Within the pcodr process, small groups of experts (including public representatives) consider the characteristics of each drug and make a funding recommendation. It is important to understand how the values and preferences of those decision-makers compare with the values and preferences of the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. In the present study, stated preference methods were used to elicit prioritization preferences from a representative sample of the Canadian public and a small convenience sample of pcodr committee members. The results suggested that neither group sought strictly to maximize quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gains and that they were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to prioritize particular patient characteristics. Both groups had a significant aversion to prioritizing older patients, patients in good pre-treatment health, and patients in poor post-treatment health. Those results are reassuring, in that they suggest that pcodr decision-maker preferences are consistent with those of the Canadian public, but they also imply that, like the larger public, decision-makers might value health gains to some patients more or less highly than the same gains to others. The implicit nature of pcodr decision criteria means that the acceptability or limits of such differential valuations are unclear. Likewise, there is no guidance as to which potential equity factors-for example, age, initial severity, and so on-are legitimate and which are not. More explicit guidance could improve the consistency and transparency of pcodr recommendations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Priority-setting; pcodr; stated preferences

Year:  2016        PMID: 27803596      PMCID: PMC5081008          DOI: 10.3747/co.23.3033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.677


  23 in total

1.  Just health care rationing: a democratic decisionmaking approach.

Authors:  Leonard M Fleck
Journal:  Univ PA Law Rev       Date:  1992-05

2.  National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments.

Authors:  Michael D Rawlins; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

3.  Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach.

Authors:  Richard Norman; Jane Hall; Deborah Street; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994-2004.

Authors:  Anthony H Harris; Suzanne R Hill; Geoffrey Chin; Jing Jing Li; Emily Walkom
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  The rationing debate. Defining a package in healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case against.

Authors:  R Klein
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-02-15

7.  The Influence of Cost-Effectiveness and Other Factors on Nice Decisions.

Authors:  Helen Dakin; Nancy Devlin; Yan Feng; Nigel Rice; Phill O'Neill; David Parkin
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Societal preferences for distributive justice in the allocation of health care resources: a latent class discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Allan Wailoo; Ron Akehurst
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Dilemmas in rationing health care services: the case for implicit rationing.

Authors:  D Mechanic
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-06-24

10.  Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Lieke Hol; Bas Donkers; Leonie van Dam; J Dik F Habbema; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-11-12       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  4 in total

1.  Revealed and Stated Preferences of Decision Makers for Priority Setting in Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Peter Ghijben; Yuanyuan Gu; Emily Lancsar; Silva Zavarsek
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Impact of a novel prioritization framework on clinician-led oncology drug submissions.

Authors:  J Keech; J Beca; A Eisen; E Kennedy; J Kim; C T Kouroukis; G Darling; S E Ferguson; A Finelli; T M Petrella; J R Perry; K Chan; S Gavura
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 3.  Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics.

Authors:  Liz Morrell; Sarah Wordsworth; Sian Rees; Richard Barker
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Value-based pricing: Toward achieving a balance between individual and population gains in health benefits.

Authors:  Ambica Parmar; Tina Jiao; Ronak Saluja; Kelvin K W Chan
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 4.452

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.