Dataset Information

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study. METHODS:Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations. RESULTS:Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended. CONCLUSION:Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

SUBMITTER: Wagner M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6706971 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

Wagner Monika M Samaha Dima D Casciano Roman R Brougham Matthew M Abrishami Payam P Petrie Charles C Avouac Bernard B Mantovani Lorenzo L Sarría-Santamera Antonio A Kind Paul P Schlander Michael M Tringali Michele M

International journal of health policy and management 20190701 7

<h4>Background</h4>The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.< ...[more]

PMID: 31441279

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an option for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients have high expectations regarding the benefits of the actual operation. Patients can seek a second opinion on the indication for TKA. In a study, less than half of recommended TKAs were confirmed by the second opinion and conservative treatments are not fully utilized. Informed consent forms that are used in Germany usually do not meet the requirements to support informed decision-making. Our aim was to describe the process from the diagnosis of knee OA through the decision-making process to the informed consent process for TKA, and to understand when, how, and by whom decisions are made. Moreover, we wanted to describe patients' information needs and preferences about knee OA and its treatment, including TKA, and find out what information is provided. We also wanted to find out what information was important for decision-making and identify barriers and facilitators for the optimal use of evidence-based informed consent forms in practice.MethodsWe chose a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who were going to receive, have received, or have declined TKA, and with general practitioners (GP), office-based as well as orthopaedists and anaesthesiologists in clinics who obtain informed consent. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsWe conducted interviews with 13 patients, three GPs, four office-based orthopaedists and seven doctors in clinics who had obtained informed consent. Information needs were modelled on subjective disease theory and information conveyed by the doctors. Patients in this sample predominantly made their decisions without having received sufficient information. Trust in doctors and experiences seemed to be more relevant in this sample than fact-based information. Office-based (GPs, orthopaedists) and orthopaedists in clinics had different understandings of their roles and expectations in terms of providing information.ConclusionsWe were able to identify structural barriers and assumptions that hinder the implementation of evidence-based informed consent forms.

Project description:BackgroundThe Singapore national Advance Care Planning (ACP) programme was launched in 2011 with the purpose of ensuring that healthcare professionals are fully aware of patients' treatment preferences. There is little research assessing the performance of such programmes in ethnically diverse Asian countries; hence, the purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine patients and caregivers' experiences with the ACP programme.MethodWe conducted interviews with 28 participants, thirteen of whom identified as proxy decision makers (PDMs) and the remainder as patients. Interviews focused on respondents' experiences of chronic illness and of participating in the ACP programme. Textual data was analysed through a framework analysis approach.ResultsParticipants' narratives focused on four major themes with 12 subthemes: a) Engagement with Death, factors influencing respondents' acceptance of ACP; b) Formation of Preferences, the set of concerns influencing respondents' choice of care; c) Choice of PDM, considerations shaping respondents' choice of nominated health spokesperson; and d) Legacy Solidification, how ACP is used to ensure the welfare of the family after the patient passes. These findings led to our development of the directive decision-making process framework, which delineates personal and sociocultural factors influencing participants' decision-making processes. Respondents' continual participation in the intervention were driven by their personal belief system that acted as a lens through which they interpreted religious doctrine and socio-cultural norms according to their particular needs.ConclusionThe directive decision-making process framework indicated that ACP could be appropriate for the Asian context because participants displayed an awareness of the need for ACP and were able to develop a concrete treatment plan. Patients in this study made decisions based on their perceived long-term legacy for their family, who they hoped to provide with a solid financial and psychological foundation after their death.

Dataset Information

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

Publications

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets