Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions

Abstract

Background. To achieve fair-coverage decision making, both material criteria and criteria of procedural justice have been proposed. The relationship between these is still unclear. Objective. To analyze hypotheses underlying the assumption that more assessment, transparency, and participation have a positive impact on the reasonableness of coverage decisions. Methods. We developed a structural equation model in which the process components were considered latent constructs and operationalized by a set of observable indicators. The dependent variable “reasonableness” was defined by the relevance of clinical, economic, and other ethical criteria in technology appraisal (as opposed to appraisal based on stakeholder lobbying). We conducted an Internet survey among conference participants familiar with coverage decisions of third-party payers in industrialized countries between 2006 and 2011. Partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) was used, which allows analyzing small sample sizes without distributional assumptions. Data on 97 coverage decisions from 15 countries and 40 experts were used for model estimation. Results. Stakeholder participation (regression coefficient [RC] =0.289; P = 0.005) and scientific rigor of assessment (RC = 0.485; P < 0.001) had a significant influence on the construct of reasonableness. The path from transparency to reasonableness was not significant (RC = 0.289; P = 0.358). For the reasonableness construct, a considerable share of the variance was explained (R² = 0.44). Biases from missing data and nesting effects were assessed through sensitivity analyses. Limitations. The results are limited by a small sample size and the overrepresentation of some decision makers. Conclusions. Rigorous assessment and intense stakeholder participation appeared effective in promoting reasonable decision making, whereas the influence of transparency was not significant. A sound evidence base seems most important as the degree of scientific rigor of assessment had the strongest effect.

Keywords

formulary decision making pharmaceuticals pharmacist statistical methods survey methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Taylor

Drummond

Salkeld

Sullivan

. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329(7472):972–5.

Sorenson

. Use of comparative effectiveness research in drug coverage and pricing decisions: a six-country comparison. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2010;91:1–14.

Henshall

Mardhani-Bayne

Fronsdal

Klemp

. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):253–60.

Kanavos

Nicod

van den Aardweg

Pomedli

. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. Euro Observer. 2010;12(4):1–7.

Eddy

. Reflections on science, judgment, and value in evidence-based decision making: a conversation with David Eddy by Sean R. Tunis. Health Aff. 2007;26(4):w500–15.

Eddy

. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice: anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990;263(3):441–3.

Stevens

Milne

. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):11–24.

Velasco-Garrido

Kristensen

Nielsen

Busse

. Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe: Current Status, Challenges and Potential. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008.

Rogowski

. An economic theory of the fourth hurdle. Health Econ. 2013;22:600–10.

10.

Hutton

McGrath

Frybourg

Tremblay

Bramley-Harker

Henshall

. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):10-18.

11.

Persad

Wertheimer

Emanuel

. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423–31.

12.

Cookson

Dolan

. Principles of justice in health care rationing. J Med Ethics. 2000;26(5):323–9.

13.

Daniels

Sabin

. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff. 1998;17(5):50–64.

14.

Friedman

. Beyond accountability for reasonableness. Bioethics. 2008;22(2):101–12.

15.

Marckmann

. Health and justice. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008;51(8):887–94.

16.

Claxton

. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.

17.

Fischer

. A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies: evidence from the real-world. Health Policy. 2012;107(2–3):218–30.

18.

Morgan

McMahon

Mitton

. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(2):337–47.

19.

Bryan

Williams

McIver

. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):179–93.

20.

Fischer

Leidl

Rogowski

. A structured tool to analyse coverage decisions: development and feasibility test in the field of cancer screening and prevention. Health Policy. 2011;101(3):290–9.

21.

Mitton

McMahon

Morgan

Gibson

. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair? Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(1):200–11.

22.

Gauvin

Abelson

Giacomini

Eyles

Lavis

. ‘It all depends’: conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1518–26.

23.

Menon

Stafinski

. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(1):75–89.

24.

McMahon

Morgan

Mitton

. The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada? Health Policy. 2006;77(3):339–51.

25.

Abelson

Giacomini

Lehoux

Gauvin

. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37–50.

26.

Sorenson

Drummond

Kanavos

. Ensuring Value For Money in Health Care: The Role of Health Technology Assessment in the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008.

27.

Luce

Drummond

Jonsson

. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76.

28.

Baltussen

Niessen

. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.

29.

Sibbald

Singer

Upshur

Martin

. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:43.

30.

Golan

Hansen

Kaplan

Tal

. Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy. 2011;102(2–3):126–35.

31.

Dakin

Devlin

Odeyemi

. ‘Yes, ‘no’ or ‘yes, but’? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy. 2006;77(3):352–67.

32.

Devlin

Parkin

. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):437–52.

33.

Segal

Dalziel

Duncan

. Fixing the game: are between-silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start? Health Econ. 2009;19(4):449–65.

34.

Erntoft

. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of health economic evaluations: a systematic literature review. Value Health. 2011;14(4):587–99.

35.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

. Multivariate Data Analysis–A Global Perspective (Global Edition). 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010.

36.

Henseler

Ringle

Sinkovics

. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics

Ghauri

, eds. Advances in International Marketing. Bingley, UK: Emerald; 2009. p 277–320.

37.

Rogowski

Hartz

John

. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.

38.

Stafinski

Menon

Philippon

McCabe

. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):475–95.

39.

Health Technology Assessment International. HTAi 2010 Abstract Book. 2010 [cited 23 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.htai2010.org/site/

40.

International Health Economics Association. 8th World Congress on Health Economics Conference Programme. 2011 [cited 23 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.healtheconomics.org/congress/2011

41.

International Health Accounts Team. A System of Health Accounts—Version 2.0, Pre-edited version March 2011. 2011 [cited 27 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/nha/sha_revision/en/

42.

World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases. 2011 [cited 27 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

43.

Reinartz

Haenlein

Henseler

. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2009;26(4):332–44.

44.

Hair

Ringle

Sarstedt

. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Marketing Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52.

45.

Vinzi

Trinchera

Amato

. PLS path modeling—from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In: Vinzi

, ed. Handbook of Partial Least Square Path Modelling. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2010. p 47–82.

46.

Fischer

. Decision-making in healthcare: a practical application of partial least square path modelling to coverage of newborn screening programmes. BMC Med Inf Dec Making. 2012;12(1):83.

47.

Ringle

Wende

Will

. SmartPLS 2.0. 2005 [cited 28 November 2011]. Available from: http://www.smartpls.com

48.

Hair

Sarstedt

Ringle

Mena

. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Marketing Sci. 2012;40:414–33.

49.

Tenenhaus

Vinzi

Chatelin

Y-M

Lauro

. PLS path modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2005;48(2005):159–205.

50.

Culyer

. Hic sunt dracones: the future of health technology assessment—one economist’s perspective. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(1):E25–32.

51.

Mullen

. Quantifying priorities in healthcare: transparency or illusion? Health Serv Manage Res. 2004;17(1):47–58.

52.

Syrett

. Health technology appraisal and the courts: accountability for reasonableness and the judicial model of procedural justice. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(4):469–88.

53.

Ringle

Sarstedt

Schlittgen

. Finite mixture and genetic algorithm segmentation in partial least squares path modeling: identification of multiple segments in a complex path model. In: Fink

Lausen

Seidel

Ultsch

eds. Advances in Data Analysis, Data Handling and Business Intelligence. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p 167–76.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB