Dataset Information

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries' approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify lessons learned from these countries' approaches. METHODS:To describe two countries' deliberative processes, we first reviewed key country policy documents and then conducted semi-structured interviews with five leaders of the processes from Belgium and New Zealand. We assessed each country's rationales for and approaches to engaging the public in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and identified lessons learned. We used qualitative content analysis of the interviews to describe key themes and subthemes. RESULTS:In both countries, the national public payer organization initiated and led the process of integrating public preferences into national coverage decision making. Reimbursement criteria considered outdated and changing societal expectations prompted the change. Both countries chose a deliberative process of public engagement with a multi-year commitment of many stakeholders to develop new reimbursement processes. Both countries' new reimbursement processes put a stronger emphasis on quality of life, the separation of individual versus societal perspectives, and the importance of final reimbursement decisions being taken in context rather than based largely on cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSIONS:To face the growing financial pressure of sustainable funding of medicines, Belgium's and New Zealand's public payers have developed processes to engage the public in defining the reimbursement system's priorities. Although these countries differ in context and geographic location, they came up with overlapping lessons learnt which include the need for 1) political commitment to initiate change, 2) broad involvement of all stakeholders, and 3) commitment of all to engage in a long-term process. To evaluate these changes, further research is required to understand how coverage decisions in systems with and without public engagement differ.

SUBMITTER: Leopold C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7183657 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.

Leopold Christine C Lu Christine Y CY Wagner Anita K AK

BMC health services research 20200425 1

<h4>Background</h4>Public health care payer organizations face increasing pressures to make transparent and sustainable coverage decisions about ever more expensive prescription drugs, suggesting a need for public engagement in coverage decisions. However, little is known about countries' approaches to integrating public preferences in existing funding decisions. The aim of this study was to describe how Belgium and New Zealand used deliberative processes to engage the public and to identify les ...[more]

PMID: 32334579

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn early 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, New Zealand implemented graduated, risk-informed national COVID-19 suppression measures aimed at disease elimination. We investigated their impacts on the epidemiology of the first wave of COVID-19 in the country and response performance measures.MethodsWe did a descriptive epidemiological study of all laboratory-confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 and all patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in New Zealand from Feb 2 to May 13, 2020, after which time community transmission ceased. We extracted data from the national notifiable diseases database and the national SARS-CoV-2 test results repository. Demographic features and disease outcomes, transmission patterns (source of infection, outbreaks, household transmission), time-to-event intervals, and testing coverage were described over five phases of the response, capturing different levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Risk factors for severe outcomes (hospitalisation or death) were examined with multivariable logistic regression and time-to-event intervals were analysed by fitting parametric distributions using maximum likelihood estimation.Findings1503 cases were detected over the study period, including 95 (6·3%) hospital admissions and 22 (1·5%) COVID-19 deaths. The estimated case infection rate per million people per day peaked at 8·5 (95% CI 7·6-9·4) during the 10-day period of rapid response escalation, declining to 3·2 (2·8-3·7) in the start of lockdown and progressively thereafter. 1034 (69%) cases were imported or import related, tending to be younger adults, of European ethnicity, and of higher socioeconomic status. 702 (47%) cases were linked to 34 outbreaks. Severe outcomes were associated with locally acquired infection (crude odds ratio [OR] 2·32 [95% CI 1·40-3·82] compared with imported), older age (adjusted OR ranging from 2·72 [1·40-5·30] for 50-64 year olds to 8·25 [2·59-26·31] for people aged ≥80 years compared with 20-34 year olds), aged residential care residency (adjusted OR 3·86 [1·59-9·35]), and Pacific peoples (adjusted OR 2·76 [1·14-6·68]) and Asian (2·15 [1·10-4·20]) ethnicities relative to European or other. Times from illness onset to notification and isolation progressively decreased and testing increased over the study period, with few disparities and increasing coverage of females, Māori, Pacific peoples, and lower socioeconomic groups.InterpretationNew Zealand's response resulted in low relative burden of disease, low levels of population disease disparities, and the initial achievement of COVID-19 elimination.FundingMinistry of Business Innovation and Employment Strategic Scientific Investment Fund, and Ministry of Health, New Zealand.

Project description:BackgroundFunding of drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) requires decisions that balance fairness for all individuals within the healthcare system with compassion for affected individuals. Our study objective was to conduct a national online survey to determine the Canadian public's perspective, including regional variations, associated with DRD decision-making.MethodsThe survey collected responses from 1631 Canadians. Respondents were asked to rank at least three and up to five DRD decision-making priorities, out of a total of eight priorities presented. They were also asked to compare and rate their agreement level on a 5-point Likert scale with four funding scenarios described. The frequency of each priority, independent of where it was ranked in relation to the other priorities, was calculated. Regression analyses were conducted to measure the association between respondents' demographics and selected priorities with their agreement level for each funding scenario.ResultsAmong the survey respondents, Improved Quality of Life and Effective Health Care were most frequently selected as top priorities. Also, 79.2% of respondents agreed with equal access to DRDs across Canada, and 73.0% agreed with DRD funding if additional expenses are justified in the DRD's cost-effectiveness. Approximately half agreed to pay for DRDs independent of their effectiveness. There were no geographic differences in priorities. Selecting Effective Health Care in the top priorities was positively associated with both prioritizing other programs over programs for rare diseases and DRD funding only if deemed as cost-effective. Respondents, who selected National Access as one of the top priorities, were less likely to agree to fund DRDs only if deemed as cost-effective and were more likely to agree with the scenario to provide national access to DRDs.ConclusionsThe survey results suggest the level of public support for funding decisions and programs that incorporate assessment of the effectiveness of drugs for improving quality of life, and to promote similar access across Canada. The responses anticipate public responses to different policy scenarios and the priorities that underlie them. Decision-makers may find it useful to consider whether and how to incorporate these results into policy decisions and their justification to citizens and patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to critically explore the views of the public about the acceptability and feasibility of proactive approaches to earlier dementia diagnosis and also identification of people at high risk of dementia. DESIGN:Qualitative study using task group methodology and thematic data analysis. SETTING:Task groups were held either at the university (n=5) or at a carers' centre (n=1). PARTICIPANTS:A convenience sample of 31 of 54 participants identified by local non-statutory agencies took part in a task group. All were aged between 40 years and 80 years, 21 were women and 10men participated. RESULTS:Despite the use of task group methodology, participants expressed limited understandings of dementia and confusion between proactive approaches. Nevertheless, they highlighted a range of potential benefits and limitations of proactive approaches and the ethical issues raised. There was a preference to embed risk assessment within routine health checks, which focused on achieving a healthier lifestyle, rather than specifically on dementia. Participants emphasised the need to ensure informed consent prior to use of proactive approaches and to provide appropriate support. They also suggested alternative approaches that could potentially facilitate the early detection of dementia or reduce risk at a population level. CONCLUSIONS:As international policy on dementia shifts towards a prevention agenda there is growing interest in identifying those at risk of developing dementia. This study provides useful insights into the acceptability of the use of such proactive approaches among the public. The introduction of proactive approaches to dementia identification raises complex practical and ethical issues, particularly in the context of low public understanding of dementia. The importance of better quality information about dementia (and the likelihood of developing dementia) and provision of psychological support for those undergoing risk assessment were highlighted.

Dataset Information

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.

Publications

Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets