HTA Agencies Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes; Comment on “Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

1 German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, DKFZ), & University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

2 Institute for Innovation & Valuation in Health Care (InnoValHC), Wiesbaden, Germany

Abstract

There are at least two reasons why health technology assessment (HTA) agencies need to seek process-based solutions to support the legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation, ie, (i) in pluralistic societies, the existence of often conflicting and incommensurable claims (ie, the “fragmentation of value”) and the lack of a broadly accepted, ethically defensible analytical framework, and (ii) the well-documented loopholes of the conventional logic of cost-effectiveness (CE) with its reductionist concept of allocative efficiency, which fails to reflect the distributive dimension of resource allocation decisions in collectively financed health schemes.

Keywords

References

  1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(1):27-33. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
  2. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1971.
  3. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1984.
  4. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1987.
  5. Gaus GF. Reason, justification, and consensus: why democracy can't have it all. In: Bohman J, Rehg W, eds. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1997:205-242.
  6. Dupuit J. De la Mesure de l’Utilité des Travaux Publiques. Annales des Ponts et Chaussees 1844; 2: 8. Reprint (in English): On the measurement of the utility of public works. International Economic Papers 1952;2:83-110.
  7. Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017.
  8. Culyer AJ. The morality of efficiency in health care--some uncomfortable implications. Health Econ. 1992;1(1):7-18. doi:10.1002/hec.4730010105
  9. Gafni A, Birch S. Guidelines for the adoption of new technologies: a prescription for uncontrolled growth in expenditures and how to avoid the problem. CMAJ. 1993;148(6):913-917.
  10. Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(9):2091-2100. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.023
  11. Birch S, Gafni A. The biggest bang for the buck or bigger bucks for the bang: the fallacy of the cost-effectiveness threshold. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(1):46-51. doi:10.1258/135581906775094235
  12. Eckermann S, Pekarsky B. Can the real opportunity cost stand up: displaced services, the straw man outside the room. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):319-325. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0140-3
  13. Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? the need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(4):399-422. doi:10.2217/cer.14.34
  14. Richardson J, Schlander M. Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2019;7(1):1557981. doi:10.1080/20016689.2018.1557981
  15. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ, Caffa M, Meuleman EJ, Rutten FF. Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections. BMJ. 2000;320(7243):1165-1168. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1165
  16. Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy. 2002;59(1):53-63. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00162-2
  17. Schlander M. Measures of efficiency in healthcare: QALMs about QALYs? Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010;104(3):214-226. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.012
  18. Smith RD, Richardson J. Can we estimate the 'social' value of a QALY? four core issues to resolve. Health Policy. 2005;74(1):77-84. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.12.009
  19. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):197-208. doi:10.1002/hec.924
  20. Woodward J. Experimental investigations of social preferences. In: Kincaid H, Ross D, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009:189-222.
  21. Rawlins M, Dillon A. NICE discrimination. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(12):683-684. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013813
  22. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002.
  23. Nagel T. Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.
  24. Carter D, Gordon J, Watt AM. Competing principles for allocating health care resources. J Med Philos. 2016;41(5):558-583. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhw017
  25. Richardson J, McKie J. Economic evaluation of services for a National Health scheme: the case for a fairness-based framework. J Health Econ. 2007;26(4):785-799. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.11.004
  26. Culyer AJ. Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes – learning by doing: Comment on “Use of evidence-informed deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies around the globe.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; In Press. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.116
  27. Culyer AJ. NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1(Pt 3):299-318. doi:10.1017/s1744133106004026
  28. Schlander M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no (t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(7):534-539. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.021683
  29. Schlander M. NICE accountability for reasonableness: a qualitative study of its appraisal of treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):207-222. doi:10.1185/030079906x159461
  30. Baltussen R, Marsh K, Thokala P, et al. Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1283-1288. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.014
  31. Wagner M, Samaha D, Casciano R, et al. 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. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(7):424-443. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.24
  32. Caro JJ, Brazier JE, Karnon J, et al. Determining value in health technology assessment: stay the course or tack away? Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(3):293-299. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0742-2
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 10, Issue 3
March 2021
Pages 158-161

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 January 2020
  • Revise Date: 06 February 2020
  • Accept Date: 15 February 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics