Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2016

01-09-2016 | Original Paper

Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries

Authors: Petra Baji, Manuel García-Goñi, László Gulácsi, Emmanouil Mentzakis, Francesco Paolucci

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In addition to cost-effectiveness, national guidelines often include other factors in reimbursement decisions. However, weights attached to these are rarely quantified, thus decisions can depend strongly on decision-maker preferences.

Objective

To explore the preferences of policymakers and healthcare professionals involved in the decision-making process for different efficiency and equity attributes of interventions and to analyse cross-country differences.

Method

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were carried out in Austria, Hungary, and Norway with policymakers and other professionals working in the health industry (N = 153 respondents). Interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity attributes (severity of disease, target age of the population and willingness to subsidise others, potential number of beneficiaries, individual health benefit, and cost-effectiveness). Parameter estimates from the DCE were used to calculate the probability of choosing a healthcare intervention with different characteristics, and to rank different equity and efficiency attributes according to their importance.

Results

In all three countries, cost-effectiveness, individual health benefit and severity of the disease were significant and equally important determinants of decisions. All countries show preferences for interventions targeting young and middle aged populations compared to those targeting populations over 60. However, decision-makers in Austria and Hungary show preferences more oriented to efficiency than equity, while those in Norway show equal preferences for equity and efficiency attributes.

Conclusion

We find that factors other than cost-effectiveness seem to play an equally important role in decision-making. We also find evidence of cross-country differences in the weight of efficiency and equity attributes.
Footnotes
1
The Main Association of Austrian Social Security Institutions) based on the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Board classify the drugs into three different reimbursement categories: red, green and yellow boxes.
 
2
(1) Priorities of the health care system, (2) severity of the disease, (3) equity (size of the target population, accessibility), (4) cost-effectiveness and quality of life (ICER, health gain per patient), (5) budget impact, and (6) opinions from Hungary and abroad.
 
3
DALY was chosen to define the cost-effectiveness threshold in this study, since the same standardised questionnaire was used previously in lower and middle income countries such as Brazil, Cuba, Nepal, and Uganda [24], where cost-effectiveness thresholds are mostly set by DALYs [32].
 
4
Norwegian and Austrian data were presented separately in previous studies [10, 12]. Norwegian data was also used in Mirelman et al. [24] in a cross-country comparison of Brazil, Cuba, Nepal Norway and Uganda.
 
5
e.g. National Health Insurance Fund, Ministry of Human Resources, National Institute for Quality and Organisational Development in Healthcare and Medicines.
 
6
Purely equitable and purely efficient interventions are those where all equity attributes are set to 1 (with all efficiency attributes to 0) and those where all efficiency attributes are set to 1 (with all equity attributes to 0), respectively.
 
7
Results are available from the authors upon request.
 
8
Results are available from the authors upon request.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dakin, H., Devlin, N., Feng, Y., Rice, N., O’Neill, P., Parkin, D.: The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. (2014). doi: 10.1002/hec.3086 Dakin, H., Devlin, N., Feng, Y., Rice, N., O’Neill, P., Parkin, D.: The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on nice decisions. Health Econ. (2014). doi: 10.​1002/​hec.​3086
3.
go back to reference Gulacsi, L., Rotar, A.M., Niewada, M., Loblova, O., Rencz, F., Petrova, G., Boncz, I., Klazinga, N.S.: Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Eur. J. Health Econ. 15(Suppl 1), S13–S25 (2014)CrossRefPubMed Gulacsi, L., Rotar, A.M., Niewada, M., Loblova, O., Rencz, F., Petrova, G., Boncz, I., Klazinga, N.S.: Health technology assessment in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Eur. J. Health Econ. 15(Suppl 1), S13–S25 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Norheim, O.F., Baltussen, R., Johri, M., Chisholm, D., Nord, E., Brock, D., Carlsson, P., Cookson, R., Daniels, N., Danis, M., Fleurbaey, M., Johansson, K.A., Kapiriri, L., Littlejohns, P., Mbeeli, T., Rao, K.D., Edejer, T.T., Wikler, D.: Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 12, 18 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Norheim, O.F., Baltussen, R., Johri, M., Chisholm, D., Nord, E., Brock, D., Carlsson, P., Cookson, R., Daniels, N., Danis, M., Fleurbaey, M., Johansson, K.A., Kapiriri, L., Littlejohns, P., Mbeeli, T., Rao, K.D., Edejer, T.T., Wikler, D.: Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 12, 18 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
go back to reference Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18(8), 951–976 (2009)CrossRefPubMed Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18(8), 951–976 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Baltussen, R., Niessen, L.: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 4, 14 (2006)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Baltussen, R., Niessen, L.: Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 4, 14 (2006)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Baltussen, R., Stolk, E., Chisholm, D., Aikins, M.: Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 15(7), 689–696 (2006)CrossRefPubMed Baltussen, R., Stolk, E., Chisholm, D., Aikins, M.: Towards a multi-criteria approach for priority setting: an application to Ghana. Health Econ. 15(7), 689–696 (2006)CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Marsh, K., Lanitis, T., Neasham, D., Orfanos, P., Caro, J.: Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32(4), 345–365 (2014)CrossRefPubMed Marsh, K., Lanitis, T., Neasham, D., Orfanos, P., Caro, J.: Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32(4), 345–365 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Defechereux, T., Paolucci, F., Mirelman, A., Youngkong, S., Botten, G., Hagen, T.P., Niessen, L.W.: Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12, 39 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Defechereux, T., Paolucci, F., Mirelman, A., Youngkong, S., Botten, G., Hagen, T.P., Niessen, L.W.: Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12, 39 (2012)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Koopmanschap, M.A., Stolk, E.A., Koolman, X.: Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 26(2), 198–204 (2010)CrossRefPubMed Koopmanschap, M.A., Stolk, E.A., Koolman, X.: Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 26(2), 198–204 (2010)CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mentzakis, E., Paolucci, F., Rubicko, G.: Priority setting in the Austrian healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment and implications for mental health. J. Ment. Health Policy Econ. 17(2), 61–73 (2014)PubMed Mentzakis, E., Paolucci, F., Rubicko, G.: Priority setting in the Austrian healthcare system: results from a discrete choice experiment and implications for mental health. J. Ment. Health Policy Econ. 17(2), 61–73 (2014)PubMed
13.
go back to reference Watson, V., Carnon, A., Ryan, M., Cox, D.: Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J. Public Health (Oxf) 34(2), 253–260 (2012)CrossRef Watson, V., Carnon, A., Ryan, M., Cox, D.: Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J. Public Health (Oxf) 34(2), 253–260 (2012)CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ratcliffe, J., Bekker, H.L., Dolan, P., Edlin, R.: Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 90(1), 45–57 (2008)CrossRefPubMed Ratcliffe, J., Bekker, H.L., Dolan, P., Edlin, R.: Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 90(1), 45–57 (2008)CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Lim, M.K., Bae, E.Y.: Eliciting stated preferences for drugs reimbursement decision criteria in South Korea. Korean J. Health Policy Adm. 19(4), 98–120 (2009)CrossRef Lim, M.K., Bae, E.Y.: Eliciting stated preferences for drugs reimbursement decision criteria in South Korea. Korean J. Health Policy Adm. 19(4), 98–120 (2009)CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Endrei, D., Molics, B., Agoston, I.: Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health 17(4), 487–489 (2014)CrossRefPubMed Endrei, D., Molics, B., Agoston, I.: Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health 17(4), 487–489 (2014)CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Dankó, D.: Health technology assessment in middle-income countries: recommendations for a balanced assessment system. J. Market Access Health Policy 2(23181), 1–10 (2014) Dankó, D.: Health technology assessment in middle-income countries: recommendations for a balanced assessment system. J. Market Access Health Policy 2(23181), 1–10 (2014)
20.
go back to reference Gulacsi, L., Orlewska, E., Pentek, M.: Health economics and health technology assessment in Central and Eastern Europe: a dose of reality. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 525–531 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Gulacsi, L., Orlewska, E., Pentek, M.: Health economics and health technology assessment in Central and Eastern Europe: a dose of reality. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 525–531 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Ringard, A., Morland, B., Larsen, B.I.: Quality and priorities in the health services. Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 132(3), 312–314 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Ringard, A., Morland, B., Larsen, B.I.: Quality and priorities in the health services. Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 132(3), 312–314 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003)PubMed Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003)PubMed
23.
go back to reference Baltussen, R., ten Asbroek, A.H., Koolman, X., Shrestha, N., Bhattarai, P., Niessen, L.W.: Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan 22(3), 178–185 (2007)CrossRefPubMed Baltussen, R., ten Asbroek, A.H., Koolman, X., Shrestha, N., Bhattarai, P., Niessen, L.W.: Priority setting using multiple criteria: should a lung health programme be implemented in Nepal? Health Policy Plan 22(3), 178–185 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Mirelman, A., Mentzakis, E., Kinter, E., Paolucci, F., Fordham, R., Ozawa, S., Ferraz, M., Baltussen, R., Niessen, L.W.: Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health 15(3), 534–539 (2012)CrossRefPubMed Mirelman, A., Mentzakis, E., Kinter, E., Paolucci, F., Fordham, R., Ozawa, S., Ferraz, M., Baltussen, R., Niessen, L.W.: Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Value Health 15(3), 534–539 (2012)CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Noorani, H.Z., Husereau, D.R., Boudreau, R., Skidmore, B.: Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 23(3), 310–315 (2007)CrossRefPubMed Noorani, H.Z., Husereau, D.R., Boudreau, R., Skidmore, B.: Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 23(3), 310–315 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Youngkong, S., Kapiriri, L., Baltussen, R.: Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop. Med. Int. Health 14(8), 930–939 (2009)CrossRefPubMed Youngkong, S., Kapiriri, L., Baltussen, R.: Setting priorities for health interventions in developing countries: a review of empirical studies. Trop. Med. Int. Health 14(8), 930–939 (2009)CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRef Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRef
28.
go back to reference McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics. pp. 105–142. Academic, New York (1974) McFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics. pp. 105–142. Academic, New York (1974)
29.
go back to reference DeShazo, J.R., Fermo, G.: Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(1), 123–143 (2002)CrossRef DeShazo, J.R., Fermo, G.: Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(1), 123–143 (2002)CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Hensher, D., Greene, W.: The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2), 133–176 (2003)CrossRef Hensher, D., Greene, W.: The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2), 133–176 (2003)CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., Flynn, T.: Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc. Sci. Med. 64(8), 1738–1753 (2007)CrossRefPubMed Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., Flynn, T.: Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments. Soc. Sci. Med. 64(8), 1738–1753 (2007)CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Shillcutt, S.D., Walker, D.G., Goodman, C.A., Mills, A.J.: Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics 27(11), 903–917 (2009)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shillcutt, S.D., Walker, D.G., Goodman, C.A., Mills, A.J.: Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics 27(11), 903–917 (2009)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Whitty, J.A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., Ratcliffe, J.: A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient 7(4):365–386 (2014) Whitty, J.A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X., Ratcliffe, J.: A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient 7(4):365–386 (2014)
34.
go back to reference Whitty, J.A., Scuffham, P.A., Rundle-Thielsee, S.: Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 9(2), 73–79 (2009)CrossRef Whitty, J.A., Scuffham, P.A., Rundle-Thielsee, S.: Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 9(2), 73–79 (2009)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries
Authors
Petra Baji
Manuel García-Goñi
László Gulácsi
Emmanouil Mentzakis
Francesco Paolucci
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0721-x

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

The European Journal of Health Economics 7/2016 Go to the issue