Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers
- 290 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsPublic Funding Cancer Drug Funding Decision Public Input Cancer Medicine
The authors wish to acknowledge Duncan Mortimer for assistance with the development of the initial search strategy.
This review was undertaken as a component of a doctoral study. TM conducted the literature search, analysed results and drafted the manuscript. TM and AH evaluated studies for inclusion. AH and AM provided edits and knowledgeable guidance.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No funding was received. TM, AH and AM have no conflicts of interest regarding this paper.
- 1.World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 2.Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in healthcare: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union. European observatory on health systems and policies. Observatory studies series No. 11. Copenhagen: WHO; 2008. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2015.
- 4.Institute of Medicine, Levit L, Balogh E, Nass S, Ganz PA. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.Google Scholar
- 5.Chalkidou K, Lopert R, Gerber A. Paying for “end-of’life” drugs in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom: balancing policy, pragmatism, and societal values. Commonw Fund. 2012;1576:2.Google Scholar
- 8.Busse R, Orvain J, Drummond M, Felix G, Malone J, Alric R, et al. Best practices in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments; Working Group 4 Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;2:361–422.Google Scholar
- 11.Rickwood S, Kleinrock M, Nunez-Gaviria M, Sakhrani S, Aitken M. The global use of medicines: outlook through 2017. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. 2013. http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Corporate/IMS%20Health%20Institute/Reports/Global_Use_of_Meds_Outlook_2017/IIHI_Global_Use_of_Meds_Report_2013.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2015.
- 12.Aitken M, Altmann T, Rosen D. Engaging patients through social media: is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients? IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics; 2014. pp. 1–47. http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Corporate/IMS%20Health%20Institute/Reports/Secure/IIHI_Social_Media_Report_2014.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2015.
- 13.Editorial. Change ahead for cancer drug funding. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e47.Google Scholar
- 15.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE Guidance, 2nd edn. London: NICE; 2008. www.nice.org.uk. Accessed 20 Feb 2015.
- 16.O’Quinn S. Patient involvement in drug coverage review. Ontario Public Drug Programs: Patient Evidence Submissions. Toronto: Ontario Public Drug Programs, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2011. https://www.cadth.ca/media/events/june-22-11/Ontario_Public_Drug_Program.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.
- 17.Loh A, Simon D, Bieber C, Eich W, Härter M. Patient and citizen participation in German health care—current state and future perspectives. Z für ärztliche Fortbild und Qual im Gesundheitswes. 2007;101:229–35.Google Scholar
- 18.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy. London: NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement/patient-and-public-involvement-policy.
- 20.Campbell D. Patients denied key treatments due to NHS cost-cutting, surgeons warn. The Guardian. 2011. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/18/nhs-cost-cutting-surgeon-warning. Accessed 31 Jan 2015.
- 21.Kaye KI, Lu CY, Day RO. Can we deny patients expensive drugs? Aust Prescr. 2006;29:146–8.Google Scholar
- 23.Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen E, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2001;5:1–186.Google Scholar
- 25.Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;1:9–16.Google Scholar
- 26.Kmet L, Lee R, Cook L. HTA initiative #13: standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2004. pp. 1–22. http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR14.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.
- 33.Prasad B, Teoksessa D, Bhaskaran V. Content analysis: a method in social science research. In: Lal Das D, editor. Research methods for social work. New Delhi: Rawat Publications; 2008. p. 174–93.Google Scholar
- 34.Berelson BR. Content analysis in communication research. New york: Hafner; 1971.Google Scholar
- 39.Rocchi A, Menon D, Verma S, Miller E. The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Value Health. 2008;11:771–83.Google Scholar
- 43.Menon D, Stafinski T, Stuart G, Access S, Menon D, Stafinski T, et al. Access to drugs for cancer: does where you live matter? Can J Public Health Rev Can. 2005;96:454–8.Google Scholar
- 52.Erdem S, Thompson C. Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment. 2014;14:1–14.Google Scholar
- 53.Burgoyne CB. Distributive justice and rationing in the NHS: framing effects in press coverage of a controversial decision. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;7:119–36.Google Scholar
- 64.Farrell C. Patient and public involvement: the evidence for policy implementation. London: Department of Health; 2004.Google Scholar
- 67.Cookson R, Dolan P, Anglia E. Principles of justice in health care. 2000;26:323–9.Google Scholar
- 68.Becker G, Murphy K, Philipson T. The value of life near its end and terminal care. Cambridge, Mass. Report No: Working Paper 13333; 2007.Google Scholar
- 69.Richardson J, McKie J, Olsen J. Welfarism or non-welfarism? Public preferences for willingness to pay versus health maximization. Monash University, Centre for Health Economics Research Paper 2005 (10); 2005. http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/42366. Accessed 13 Dec 2014.
- 72.Shah KK, Tsuchiya A, Wailoo AJ, Hole AR, Health A, Thea T, et al. Valuing health at the end of life: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. HEDS Discuss Pap. 2012;124:1–56.Google Scholar
- 73.Crooks D, Savage C. Pan-Canadian oncology drug review: update on progress. Cancer Advocacy Coalition Canada. 2013. http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/reportcard/2013/Pan-Canadian%20Oncology%20Drug%20Review.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.
- 74.Donnelly L. Cancer patients facing race against clock for drugs in fund “betrayal.” The Telegraph. 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9972714/Cancer-patients-facing-race-against-clock-for-drugs-in-fund-betrayal.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.
- 75.Walker J. Scottish cancer drug fund. SPICe. 2013;12:1–4.Google Scholar
- 76.Musgrave T. PBS should pay for abiraterone for all incurable prostate cancer patients. Change.org. https://www.change.org/p/pbs-should-pay-for-abiraterone-for-all-incurable-prostate-cancer-patients. Accessed 20 Dec 2014.