Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

2 Department of Bioethics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

4 Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada

5 Division of Paediatric Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

Background 
There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations.
 
Methods 
A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software.
 
Results 
A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases.
 
Conclusion 
The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Keywords

References

  1. Denburg AE, Ungar WJ, Greenberg M. Public drug policy for children in Canada. CMAJ. 2017;189(30):E990-E994. doi:1503/cmaj.170380
  2. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35. doi:1186/1471-2288-6-35
  3. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):456-465. doi:1017/s0266462313000573
  4. Nicod E, Kanavos P. Scientific and social value judgments for orphan drugs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):218-232. doi:1017/s0266462316000416
  5. Nicod E, Kanavos P. Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: a mixed methods study. Health Policy. 2016;120(1):35-45. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2015.11.007
  6. Bentley C, Peacock S, Abelson J, et al. Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):17. doi:1186/s12961-019-0411-8
  7. Annemans L, Aymé S, Le Cam Y, et al. Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in rare diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):50. doi:1186/s13023-017-0601-9
  8. Maynou L, Cairns J. What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries. Health Policy. 2019;123(2):130-139. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2018.11.003
  9. Wagner M, Samaha D, Casciano R, et al. Accountable and reasonable processes for coverage decision-making for rare disease and regenerative therapies–which criteria should be considered and why? Value Health. 2018;21(Suppl 1):S52. doi:1016/j.jval.2018.04.437
  10. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137-156. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024
  11. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(1):123-152. doi:1007/s10198-017-0871-0
  12. Brixner D, Kaló Z, Maniadakis N, Kim K, Wijaya K. An evidence framework for off-patent pharmaceutical review for health technology assessment in emerging markets. Value Health Reg Issues. 2018;16:9-13. doi:1016/j.vhri.2018.01.003
  13. Angelis A, Kanavos P. Application of a value framework based on multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: a series of case studies with decision makers across European countries. Value Health. 2016;19(7):A360. doi:1016/j.jval.2016.09.080
  14. High Cost Drug. NHS Data Model and Dictionary. https://www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/nhs_business_definitions/high_cost_drug.html. Updated June 28, 2023. Accessed July 4, 2023.
  15. Long Term Care Formulary. Alberta Health Services. https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/hp/ltc/if-hp-ltc-hcd-01-high-cost-drug-use-conditions.pdf. Updated January 31, 2008. Accessed July 4, 2023.
  16. Formulary Management. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. https://www.amcp.org/about/managed-care-pharmacy-101/concepts-managed-care-pharmacy/formulary-management. Updated July 18, 2019. Accessed July 4, 2023.
  17. Gibson J, Mitton C, Martin D, Donaldson C, Singer P. Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(1):32-37. doi:1258/135581906775094280
  18. Anderson P, Webb P, Groves S. Prioritisation of specialist health care services; not NICE, not easy but it can be done. Health Policy. 2017;121(9):978-985. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.007
  19. Browman GP, Manns B, Hagen N, Chambers CR, Simon A, Sinclair S. 6-STEPPPs: a modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(1):2-7. doi:1200/jop.0812001
  20. Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1938-1945. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016
  21. Edwards W. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1977;7(5):326-340. doi:1109/tsmc.1977.4309720
  22. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589-597. doi:1080/2159676x.2019.1628806
  23. Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G. Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019:843-860. doi:1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
  24. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45. doi:1186/1471-2288-8-45
  25. Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):255-269. doi:1007/s40273-014-0235-x
  26. Barasa EW, Molyneux S, English M, Cleary S. Setting healthcare priorities at the macro and meso levels: a framework for evaluation. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(11):719-732. doi:15171/ijhpm.2015.167
  27. Adkins EM, Nicholson L, Floyd D, Ratcliffe M, Chevrou-Severac H. Oncology drugs for orphan indications: how are HTA processes evolving for this specific drug category? Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;9:327-342. doi:2147/ceor.s134230
  28. Aidem JM. Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study. Health Policy. 2017;121(6):683-690. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.005
  29. Cannizzo S, Lorenzoni V, Palla I, et al. Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives. RMD Open. 2018;4(Suppl 1):e000794. doi:1136/rmdopen-2018-000794
  30. Chim L, Salkeld G, Kelly PJ, Lipworth W, Hughes DA, Stockler MR. Community views on factors affecting medicines resource allocation: cross-sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia. Aust Health Rev. 2019;43(3):254-260. doi:1071/ah16209
  31. Guarga L, Badia X, Obach M, et al. Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):157. doi:1186/s13023-019-1121-6
  32. Stratil JM, Baltussen R, Scheel I, Nacken A, Rehfuess EA. Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:8. doi:1186/s12962-020-0203-6
  33. Gosain S, Bullement A, Kirby J, Ralph L, Lilley C, Lawrence D. PSY167 - Comparison of pharmacoeconomic (PE) evaluations for drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) evaluated by CADTH and NICE. Value Health. 2018;21(Suppl 3):S465. doi:1016/j.jval.2018.09.2741
  34. Brixner D, Kaló Z, Maniadakis N, Kim K, Wijaya K. An evidence framework for off-patent pharmaceutical review for health technology assessment in emerging markets. Value Health Reg Issues. 2018;16:9-13. doi:1016/j.vhri.2018.01.003
  35. 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:1177/0020731416689552
  36. Fortinguerra F, Tafuri G, Trotta F, Addis A. Using GRADE methodology to assess innovation of new medicinal products in Italy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(1):93-105. doi:1111/bcp.14138
  37. Aabbassi B, Benali A, Asri F. Risperidone-induced priapism in an autistic child: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2016;10:164. doi:1186/s13256-016-0956-x
  38. Leopold C, Lu CY, Wagner AK. Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):351. doi:1186/s12913-020-05152-2
  39. Morgan RL, Kelley L, Guyatt GH, Johnson A, Lavis JN. Decision-making frameworks and considerations for informing coverage decisions for healthcare interventions: a critical interpretive synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:143-150. doi:1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.023
  40. Denburg AE, Ungar WJ, Chen S, Hurley J, Abelson J. Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey. Health Policy. 2020;124(6):647-658. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.04.007
  41. Vearrier L, Henderson CM. Utilitarian principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. HEC Forum. 2021;33(1-2):45-60. doi:1007/s10730-020-09431-7
  42. Austin W. The ethics of everyday practice: healthcare environments as moral communities. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2007;30(1):81-88. doi:1097/00012272-200701000-00009
  43. Werhane PH, Rorty MV. Organization ethics in healthcare. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2000;9(2):145-146. doi:1017/s0963180100902019
  44. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: a descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(4):463-469. doi:1017/s0266462309990390
  45. Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, Pennacchini M, de Paula IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos. 2009;12(4):453-457. doi:1007/s11019-009-9206-y
  46. Burls A, Caron L, Cleret de Langavant G, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):230-237. doi:1017/s0266462311000250
  47. Denburg AE, Giacomini M, Ungar WJ, Abelson J. The moral foundations of child health and social policies: a critical interpretive synthesis. Children (Basel). 2021;8(1):43. doi:3390/children8010043
  48. Pucchio A, Rieder M. High-cost drug policies in Canadian children's hospitals: an exploratory study. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2023;28(4):343-347. doi:5863/1551-6776-28.4.343
  49. Angelis A, Linch M, Montibeller G, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for HTA across four EU member states: piloting the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112595. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2019.112595
  50. Akehurst RL, Abadie E, Renaudin N, Sarkozy F. Variation in health technology assessment and reimbursement processes in Europe. Value Health. 2017;20(1):67-76. doi:1016/j.jval.2016.08.725
  51. Harrison KL, Taylor HA, Merritt MW. Action guide for addressing ethical challenges of resource allocation within community-based healthcare organizations. J Clin Ethics. 2018;29(2):124-138.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 31 October 2023
  • Accept Date: 23 January 2024
  • First Publish Date: 24 January 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics