Cargando…

What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions

Background. Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cleemput, Irina, Devriese, Stephan, Kohn, Laurence, Devos, Carl, van Til, Janine, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M., van de Voorde, Carine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35187243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468318799628
_version_ 1784653645407584256
author Cleemput, Irina
Devriese, Stephan
Kohn, Laurence
Devos, Carl
van Til, Janine
Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M.
van de Voorde, Carine
author_facet Cleemput, Irina
Devriese, Stephan
Kohn, Laurence
Devos, Carl
van Til, Janine
Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M.
van de Voorde, Carine
author_sort Cleemput, Irina
collection PubMed
description Background. Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value. Methods. A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method. Results. Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21). Limitations. Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small. Conclusion. Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8855405
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88554052022-02-19 What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions Cleemput, Irina Devriese, Stephan Kohn, Laurence Devos, Carl van Til, Janine Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M. van de Voorde, Carine MDM Policy Pract Article Background. Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value. Methods. A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method. Results. Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21). Limitations. Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small. Conclusion. Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes. SAGE Publications 2018-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8855405/ /pubmed/35187243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468318799628 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
Cleemput, Irina
Devriese, Stephan
Kohn, Laurence
Devos, Carl
van Til, Janine
Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M.
van de Voorde, Carine
What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title_full What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title_fullStr What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title_full_unstemmed What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title_short What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions
title_sort what does the public want? structural consideration of citizen preferences in health care coverage decisions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855405/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35187243
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468318799628
work_keys_str_mv AT cleemputirina whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT devriesestephan whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT kohnlaurence whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT devoscarl whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT vantiljanine whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT groothuisoudshoorncatharinagm whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions
AT vandevoordecarine whatdoesthepublicwantstructuralconsiderationofcitizenpreferencesinhealthcarecoveragedecisions