» Articles » PMID: 32645035

Value Judgment of New Medical Treatments: Societal and Patient Perspectives to Inform Priority Setting in The Netherlands

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2020 Jul 10
PMID 32645035
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In many countries, medical interventions are reimbursed on the basis of recommendations made by advisory boards and committees that apply multiple criteria in their assessment procedures. Given the diversity of these criteria, it is difficult to find common ground to determine what information is required for setting priorities.

Objective: To investigate whether society and patients share the same interests and views concerning healthcare priorities.

Methods: We applied a framework of discrete choice models in which respondents were presented with judgmental tasks to elicit their preferences. They were asked to choose between two hypothetical scenarios of patients receiving a new treatment. The scenarios graphically presented treatment outcomes and patient characteristics. Responses were collected through an online survey administered among respondents from the general population (N = 1,253) and patients (N = 1,389) and were analyzed using conditional logit and mixed logit models.

Results: The respondents' preferences regarding new medical treatments revealed that they attached the most relative importance to additional survival years, age at treatment, initial health condition, and the cause of disease. Minor differences in the relative importance assigned to three criteria: age at treatment, initial health, and cause of disease were found between the general population and patient samples. Health scenarios in which patients had higher initial health-related quality of life (i.e., a lower burden of disease) were favored over those in which patients' initial health-related quality of life was lower.

Conclusions: Overall, respondents within the general population expressed preferences that were similar to those of the patients. Therefore, priority-setting studies that are based on the perspectives of the general population may be useful for informing decisions on reimbursement and other types of priority-setting processes in health care. Incorporating the preferences of the general population may simultaneously increase public acceptance of these decisions.

Citing Articles

Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective.

Johnston K, Audhya I, Dunne J, Feeny D, Neumann P, Malone D Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024; 22(3):343-352.

PMID: 38253973 PMC: 11021240. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7.


Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies.

Al-Aqeel S, Alotaiwi R, Albugami B Health Econ Rev. 2023; 13(1):17.

PMID: 36933108 PMC: 10024410. DOI: 10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0.


How should ICU beds be allocated during a crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dieteren C, van Hulsen M, Rohde K, van Exel J PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0270996.

PMID: 35947541 PMC: 9365136. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270996.


What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK.

Morrell L, Buchanan J, Rees S, Barker R, Wordsworth S Pharmacoeconomics. 2021; 39(12):1443-1454.

PMID: 34409564 PMC: 8599241. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01067-w.


Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.

Delpasand M, Olyaaeemanesh A, Jaafaripooyan E, Abdollahiasl A, Davari M, Kazemi Karyani A J Pharm Policy Pract. 2021; 14(1):59.

PMID: 34256875 PMC: 8278681. DOI: 10.1186/s40545-021-00345-4.

References
1.
Baker R, Wildman J, Mason H, Donaldson C . Q-ing for health--a new approach to eliciting the public's views on health care resource allocation. Health Econ. 2013; 23(3):283-97. DOI: 10.1002/hec.2914. View

2.
van de Wetering L, van Exel J, Bobinac A, Brouwer W . Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015; 33(12):1289-300. PMC: 4661217. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0311-x. View

3.
Williams A . Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ. 1997; 6(2):117-32. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199703)6:2<117::aid-hec256>3.0.co;2-b. View

4.
Singh J, Lord J, Longworth L, Orr S, McGarry T, Sheldon R . Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety. Value Health. 2012; 15(5):690-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.005. View

5.
Whitty J, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J . A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014; 7(4):365-86. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-014-0063-2. View