Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

‘The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough’: a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children

Authors: Avram E. Denburg, Mita Giacomini, Wendy J. Ungar, Julia Abelson

Published in: International Journal for Equity in Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Public policy approaches to funding paediatric medicines in developed public health systems remain understudied. Current approaches to HTA present a variety of conceptual, methodological and practical problems in the context of child health. This study explores the technical and sociopolitical determinants of public funding decisions on paediatric drugs, through the analysis of interviews with stakeholders involved in or impacted by HTA for child health technologies at the provincial and national levels in Canada.

Methods

We undertook in-depth interviews with a purposive sample (n = 22) of stakeholders involved with or affected by drug funding decisions for children at the provincial (Ontario) and national levels in Canada. Grounded theory methods were employed to guide data collection and analysis. Theory on ‘technology-as-policy’ and the sociopolitics of health technologies served as sensitizing concepts for inductive data coding and analysis. Emergent themes informed the development of conceptual and practical insights on social values and system dynamics related to child HTA, of relevance to public policymaking on the coverage of health technologies for children in Canada.

Results

Participant reflection on the normative and systems dimensions of drug funding for children formed two broad categories: HTA paradigms and sociopolitical context. Our analysis revealed notable differences of context and substance related to child health technology production, evaluation and use. These differences spanned the major phases of HTA (from assembly to assessment to integration) and the surrounding sociopolitical milieu (from markets to governance to politics). Careful analysis of these differences sets in relief a number of substantive and procedural shortcomings of current HTA paradigms in respect of child health. Our findings suggest a need to rethink how HTA is structured and operationalized for child health technologies.

Conclusions

Current approaches to health technology assessment are not well calibrated to the realities of child health and illness. Our study presents a nuanced and contextually grounded analysis of concepts instrumental to drug funding decisions for children. The insights generated are directly applicable to the Canadian and Ontario contexts, but also yield fundamental knowledge about HTA for children that are germane to drug policy in other health systems.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on Medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (Official Journal L378,27/12/2006, 1–19). Accessed 5 Feb 2017. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on Medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (Official Journal L378,27/12/2006, 1–19). Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
2.
go back to reference Best Medicines for Children Act 2002 (BPCA) Public Law 107–109. Accessed 5 Feb 2017. Best Medicines for Children Act 2002 (BPCA) Public Law 107–109. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
3.
go back to reference Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) Public Law 108–155. Accessed 5 Feb 2017. Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) Public Law 108–155. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
4.
go back to reference INAHTA. What is health technology assessment (HTA)? Edmonton: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Available: www.inahta.org/ (Accessed 10 2017 Feb). INAHTA. What is health technology assessment (HTA)? Edmonton: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Available: www.​inahta.​org/​ (Accessed 10 2017 Feb).
5.
go back to reference Costa V, Ungar WJ. Health technology assessment in child health. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. Costa V, Ungar WJ. Health technology assessment in child health. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
9.
go back to reference Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
10.
go back to reference Bowen G. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):1–9.CrossRef Bowen G. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):1–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109(1):121–36. Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109(1):121–36.
12.
go back to reference Verbeek P. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2006;31(3):361–80.CrossRef Verbeek P. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2006;31(3):361–80.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25(6):1083–120.CrossRef Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25(6):1083–120.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Giacomini M, Winsor S, Abelson J. Ethics in health technology assessment: understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum. 2013;26:72–6.CrossRef Giacomini M, Winsor S, Abelson J. Ethics in health technology assessment: understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum. 2013;26:72–6.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority-setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the priority-setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–85.CrossRef Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority-setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the priority-setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–85.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, et al. Priority-setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310–5.CrossRef Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, et al. Priority-setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310–5.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Giacomini M. The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24(4):715–58.CrossRef Giacomini M. The which-hunt: assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24(4):715–58.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282–93.CrossRef Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11:282–93.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Health. 2002;122:50–4.CrossRef Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Health. 2002;122:50–4.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Dolores LS, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.CrossRef Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Dolores LS, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Abrahamyan L, Feldman BM, Tomlinson G, et al. Alternative designs for clinical trials in rare diseases. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2016;172:313–31.CrossRef Abrahamyan L, Feldman BM, Tomlinson G, et al. Alternative designs for clinical trials in rare diseases. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2016;172:313–31.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
‘The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough’: a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children
Authors
Avram E. Denburg
Mita Giacomini
Wendy J. Ungar
Julia Abelson
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1475-9276
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01164-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

International Journal for Equity in Health 1/2020 Go to the issue