Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Paul Hansen²  Ofra Golan¹ 

[1]Unit for Genetic Policy & Bioethics, The Gertner Institute for Epidemiology & Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, Israel

[2]Department of Economics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

关键词: Value for money;    Points system;    Multi-criteria decision analysis;    Basket committee;    Prioritization;    Health technology;   

Others  :  805112
DOI  :  10.1186/2045-4015-1-44

 received in 2011-12-11, accepted in 2012-07-17,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Deciding which health technologies to fund involves confronting some of the most difficult choices in medicine. As for other countries, the Israeli health system is faced each year with having to make these difficult decisions. The Public National Advisory Committee, known as ‘the Basket Committee’, selects new technologies for the basic list of health care that all Israelis are entitled to access, known as the ‘health basket’. We introduce a framework for health technology prioritization based explicitly on value for money that enables the main variables considered by decision-makers to be explicitly included. Although the framework’s exposition is in terms of the Basket Committee selecting new technologies for Israel’s health basket, we believe that the framework would also work well for other countries.

Methods

Our proposed prioritization framework involves comparing four main variables for each technology:1. Incremental benefits, including ‘equity benefits’, to Israel’s population; 2. Incremental total cost to Israel’s health system; 3. Quality of evidence; and 4. Any additional ‘X-factors’ not elsewhere included, such as strategic or legal factors, etc. Applying methodology from multi-criteria decision analysis, the multiple dimensions comprising the first variable are aggregated via a points system.

Results

The four variables are combined for each technology and compared across the technologies in the ‘Value for Money (VfM) Chart’. The VfM Chart can be used to identify technologies that are good value for money, and, given a budget constraint, to select technologies that should be funded. This is demonstrated using 18 illustrative technologies.

Conclusions

The VfM Chart is an intuitively appealing decision-support tool for helping decision-makers to focus on the inherent tradeoffs involved in health technology prioritization. Such deliberations can be performed in a systematic and transparent fashion that can also be easily communicated to stakeholders, including the general public. Possible future research includes pilot-testing the VfM Chart using real-world data. Ideally, this would involve working with the Basket Committee. Likewise, the framework could be tested and applied by health technology prioritization agencies in other countries.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Golan and Hansen; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rosen B, Merkur S: Israel: Health system review. Health Syst Transit 2009, 11:1-226.
• [2]Yasour Beit-Or M: The medications basket: the big winners – elderly and children [Hebrew]. Ynet Health News 5 January 2011.
• [3]Greenberg D, Siebzehner MI, Pliskin JS: The process of updating the National List of Health Services in Israel: Is it legitimate? Is it fair? Int J Technol Assess 2009, 25:255-261.
• [4]Tamir O, Rabinovich M, Shani M: Year 2006 update of the Israel National List of Health Services. Isr Med Assoc J 2006, 8:595-600.
• [5]Israeli A, Chinitz D: Updating the basket of health services [Hebrew]. Harefuah 2003, 142:100-102. 159
• [6]Chinitz D, Shalev C, Galai N, Israeli A: The second phase of priority setting. Israel’s basic basket of health services: the importance of being explicitly implicit. BMJ 1998, 317:1005-1007.
• [7]Shani S, Yahalom Z: The Israeli model for managing the national list of health services in an era of limited resources. Law Policy 2002, 24:133-147.
• [8]Israeli Ministry of Health: The Procedure of Updating the Health Services Basket – February 2010. [Hebrew] Jerusalem; 2011. [http://www.health.gov.il/hozer/sal_noal181010.pdf webcite]
• [9]Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O: Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy 2011, 102:126-135.
• [10]Sabik LM, Lie RK: Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health 2008, 7:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Nord E: Balancing relevant criteria in allocating scarce life-saving interventions. Am J Bioethics 2010, 10:56-58.
• [12]Kenny N, Joffres C: An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting. Health Care Anal 2008, 16:145-160.
• [13]Holm S: Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second stage of priority setting in health care. BMJ 1998, 317:1000-1007.
• [14]Hoedemaekers R, Dekkers W: Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Anal 2003, 11:325-343.
• [15]Devlin N, Sussex J: Incorporating Multiple Criteria in HTA. Methods and Processes. OHE Report. London: Office of Health Economics; 2011.
• [16]Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C: Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. PharmacoEconomics 2011, 29:475-495.
• [17]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Social Value Judgements. Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. London; 2008.
• [18]Golan O: Health resources allocation – addition of new healthcare technologies to the Health Basket. In Israeli Bioethics and Health Law Edited by Siegal G. forthcoming.
• [19]Culyer AJ, Bombard Y: An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making 2012, 32:428-441.
• [20]Hastie R, Dawes RM: Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. California: Sage Publications; 2010.
• [21]Medal.org Limited: Medal.org website. [http://www.medicalalgorithms.com webcite]
• [22]MacCormick AD, Collecutt WG, Parry BR: Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic review. ANZ J Surgery 2003, 73:633-642.
• [23]Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet 2009, 373:423-431.
• [24]Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O’Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann HJ, Edejer TT, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr: Zaza S for the GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004, 328:1490-1494.
• [25]Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D, for the Methods Work Group U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001, 20:21-35.
• [26]Treadwell JR, Tregear SJ, Reston JT, Turkelson CM: A system for rating the stability and strength of medical evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A, Beynon S, Booth A, Burch J, Chambers D, Craig D, Dalton J, Duffy S, Eastwood A, Fayter D, Fonseca T, Fox D, Glanville J, Golder S, Hempel S, Light K, McDaid C, Norman G, Pierce C, Phillips B, Rice S, Rithalia A, Rodgers M, Sharp F, Sowden A, Stewart L, Stock C, Trowman R, Wade R, Westwood M, Wilson P, Woolacott N, Worthy G, Wright K: Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
• [28]Belton V, Stewart TJ: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer; 2002.
• [29]Buckshaw D: Decision analysis software survey. OR/MS Today. 2010. 37 http://www.orms-today.org/surveys/das/das.html webcite
• [30]McFadden D: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics. Edited by Zarembka P. New York: Academic Press; 1973.
• [31]Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (Eds): Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Amsterdam: Springer; 2008.
• [32]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [33]Hansen P, Ombler F: A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 2008, 15:87-107.
• [34]1000Minds software. http://www.1000minds.com webcite
• [35]Taylor W, Laking G: Value for money – recasting the problem in terms of dynamic access prioritisation. Disabil Rehabil 2010, 32:1020-1027.
• [36]Hansen P, Hendry A, Naden R, Ombler F, Stewart R: A new process for creating points systems for prioritising patients for elective health services. Clin Govern Int J 2012, 17:200-209.
• [37]Fitzgerald A, De Coster C, McMillan S, Naden R, Armstrong F, Barber A, Cunning L, Conner-Spady B, Hawker G, Lacaille D, Lane C, Mosher D, Rankin J, Sholter D, Noseworthy T: Relative urgency for referral from primary care to rheumatologists: the priority referral score. Arthrit Care Res 2010, 63:231-239.
• [38]Neogi T, Aletaha D, Silman AJ, Naden RL, Felson DT, Aggarwal R, Bingham CO III, Birnbaum NS, Burmester GR, Bykerk VP, Cohen MD, Combe B, Costenbader KH, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JMW, Hobbs K, Huizinga TWJ, Kavanaugh A, Kay J, Khanna D, Kvien TK, Laing T, Liao K, Mease P, Ménard HA, Moreland LW, Nair R, Pincus T, et al.: The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report. Arthritis Rheum 2010, 62:2582-2591.
• [39]Taylor WJ, Singh JA, Saag KG, Dalbeth D, MacDonald PA, Edwards NL, Simon LS, Stamp LK, Neogi T, Gaffo AL, Khanna PP, Becker MA, Schumacher HR Jr: Bringing it all together: a novel approach to the development of response criteria for chronic gout clinical trials. J Rheumatol 2011, 38:1467-1470.
• [40]Even D: Israel to fund dental care for kids at expense of other treatments. Haaretz 2009. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-to-fund-dental-care-for-kids-at-expense-of-other-treatments-1.2140 webcite
• [41]Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, Goetghebeur MM: Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:329. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Weinstein M, Zeckhauser R: Critical ratios and efficient allocation. J Public Econ 1973, 2:147-157.
• [43]Birch S, Gafni A: Cost effectiveness/utility analysis. Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? J Health Econ 1992, 11:279-296.
• [44]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, 11:46-51.
• [45]Birch S, Gafni A: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:2091-2100.
• [46]Mitton C, Donaldson C: Priority Setting Toolkit: A Guide to the Use of Economics in Healthcare Decision Making. London: BMJ Books; 2004.
• [47]Freville A: The multidimensional 0-1 knapsack problem: an overview. Eur J Oper Res 2004, 155:1-21.
• [48]HCJ 434/09: Davidov v. The Minister of Health; 2009. [Hebrew] http://www.nevo.co.il/psika_word/elyon/09004340-w09.doc webcite