Under Careful Construction: Combining Findings, Arguments, and Values into Robust Health Care Coverage Decisions

Overview

Journal BMC Health Serv Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Health Services

Date 2022 Jun 7

PMID 35672735

Authors

T H Kleinhout-Vliek

A A de Bont

A Boer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Health care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement at a national level. The coverage decision report, i.e., the publicly available document giving reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decisions.

Methods: This study describes a model for combining different elements in coverage decisions. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n = 2, with field notes taken) and the corresponding audio files (n = 3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n = 10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n = 5 in three interviews), and relevant documents (n = 4).

Results: We conceptualise decisions as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision.

Conclusions: Based on the proposed model, we suggest actively identifying a wider variety of elements and stepping up in terms of engaging patients and the public, including facilitating appeals. Future research could explore how different actors perceive the robustness of decisions and how this relates to their perceived legitimacy.

References

Baltussen R, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L, Grutters J, Kluytmans A, Reuzel R . Value Assessment Frameworks for HTA Agencies: The Organization of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes. Value Health. 2017; 20(2):256-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.019. View

Russell J, Swinglehurst D, Greenhalgh T . 'Cosmetic boob jobs' or evidence-based breast surgery: an interpretive policy analysis of the rationing of 'low value' treatments in the English National Health Service. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:413. PMC: 4177599. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-413. View

Baltussen R, Jansen M, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hontelez J, Bijlmakers L . Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016; 5(11):615-618. PMC: 5088720. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.83. View

Williams I, Brown H, Healy P . Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018; 7(8):683-695. PMC: 6077272. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.09. View

McIver S, Ham C . Five cases, four actors and a moral: lessons from studies of contested treatment decisions. Health Expect. 2001; 3(2):114-124. PMC: 5080959. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00089.x. View

Kleinhout-Vliek T, de Bont A, Boysen M, Perleth M, van der Veen R, Zwaap J . Around the Tables - Contextual Factors in Healthcare Coverage Decisions Across Western Europe. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; 9(9):390-402. PMC: 7557427. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.145. View

Martin D, Pater J, Singer P . Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001; 358(9294):1676-81. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06714-9. View

Kalf R, Makady A, Ham R, Meijboom K, Goettsch W . Use of Social Media in the Assessment of Relative Effectiveness: Explorative Review With Examples From Oncology. JMIR Cancer. 2018; 4(1):e11. PMC: 6015273. DOI: 10.2196/cancer.7952. View

Cromwell I, Peacock S, Mitton C . 'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:164. PMC: 4433097. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3. View

10.

Nicod E, Kanavos P . Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2012; 108(2-3):167-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.09.012. View

11.

Salas-Vega S, Bertling A, Mossialos E . A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Health Policy. 2016; 120(10):1104-1114. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.006. View

12.

Kleinhout-Vliek T, de Bont A, Boer B . The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2017; 121(7):731-744. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.011. View

13.

Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E . Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--a review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2007; 86(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.09.007. View

14.

Guindo L, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P . From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012; 10(1):9. PMC: 3495194. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-9. View

15.

Walley T . Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust. 2007; 187(5):283-5. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01244.x. View

16.

Moreira T . Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: a conceptual model. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 72(8):1333-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.026. View

17.

Kleinhout-Vliek T, de Bont A, Boer B . Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies. Health Econ Policy Law. 2020; 16(4):457-472. PMC: 8460450. DOI: 10.1017/S1744133120000341. View

18.

Cerri K, Knapp M, Fernandez J . Public funding of pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 15(7):681-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0514-z. View

19.

Russell J, Greenhalgh T . Being 'rational' and being 'human': How National Health Service rationing decisions are constructed as rational by resource allocation panels. Health (London). 2013; 18(5):441-57. DOI: 10.1177/1363459313507586. View

20.

Calnan M, Hashem F, Brown P . Still Elegantly Muddling Through? NICE and Uncertainty in Decision Making About the Rationing of Expensive Medicines in England. Int J Health Serv. 2017; 47(3):571-594. DOI: 10.1177/0020731416689552. View