Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada

Authors: Colene Bentley, Sarah Costa, Michael M. Burgess, Dean Regier, Helen McTaggart-Cowan, Stuart J. Peacock

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens.

Methods

In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens’ input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software.

Results

Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way.

Conclusion

The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bach PB. Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on Cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626–33.CrossRefPubMed Bach PB. Limits on Medicare's ability to control rising spending on Cancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626–33.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Mailankody S, Prasad V. Five years of Cancer drug approvals: innovation, efficacy, and costs. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):539–40.CrossRefPubMed Mailankody S, Prasad V. Five years of Cancer drug approvals: innovation, efficacy, and costs. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(4):539–40.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Experts in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood. 2013;121(22):4439–42.CrossRefPubMedCentral Experts in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood. 2013;121(22):4439–42.CrossRefPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Motzer RJ, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(2):115–24.CrossRefPubMed Motzer RJ, et al. Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(2):115–24.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference O'Brien SG, et al. Imatinib compared with interferon and low-dose Cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(11):994–1004.CrossRefPubMed O'Brien SG, et al. Imatinib compared with interferon and low-dose Cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(11):994–1004.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Schrag D. The price tag on progress — chemotherapy for colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):317–9.CrossRefPubMed Schrag D. The price tag on progress — chemotherapy for colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(4):317–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Davis C, et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European medicines agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. 2017;359:j4530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Davis C, et al. Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European medicines agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. 2017;359:j4530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Vivot A, et al. Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000-2015. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1111–6.CrossRefPubMed Vivot A, et al. Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000-2015. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1111–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference de Groot F, et al. Ethical hurdles in the prioritization of oncology care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):119–26.CrossRefPubMed de Groot F, et al. Ethical hurdles in the prioritization of oncology care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):119–26.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Marckmann G, In der Schmitten J. Financial toxicity of Cancer drugs: possible remedies from an ethical perspective. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12(2):81–5.CrossRef Marckmann G, In der Schmitten J. Financial toxicity of Cancer drugs: possible remedies from an ethical perspective. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12(2):81–5.CrossRef
13.
15.
go back to reference Blacksher E, et al. What is public deliberation? Hast Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):14–6.CrossRef Blacksher E, et al. What is public deliberation? Hast Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):14–6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making--an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference O’Doherty KC. Synthesizing the outputs of deliberation: extracting meaningful results from a public forum. J Public Deliber. 2013;9(1):203–15. O’Doherty KC. Synthesizing the outputs of deliberation: extracting meaningful results from a public forum. J Public Deliber. 2013;9(1):203–15.
20.
go back to reference Solomon S, Abelson J. Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hast Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):17–20.CrossRef Solomon S, Abelson J. Why and when should we use public deliberation? Hast Cent Rep. 2012;42(2):17–20.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Stafinski T, Menon D, Yasui Y. Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it ‘in one ear and out the other’? Health Expect. 2014;17(2):278–90.CrossRefPubMed Stafinski T, Menon D, Yasui Y. Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it ‘in one ear and out the other’? Health Expect. 2014;17(2):278–90.CrossRefPubMed
22.
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(3):282–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):282–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Einsiedel EF, Ross H. Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8(4):579–91.CrossRefPubMed Einsiedel EF, Ross H. Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8(4):579–91.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Bombard Y, et al. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(1):135–44.CrossRefPubMed Bombard Y, et al. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(1):135–44.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Abelson J, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66(1):95–106.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genom. 2009;12(4):203–15.CrossRef O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genom. 2009;12(4):203–15.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Nadler E, Eckert B, Neumann PJ. Do oncologists believe new Cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist. 2006;11(2):90–5.CrossRefPubMed Nadler E, Eckert B, Neumann PJ. Do oncologists believe new Cancer drugs offer good value? Oncologist. 2006;11(2):90–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001;358(9294):1676–81. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet. 2001;358(9294):1676–81.
29.
30.
go back to reference Berry SR, et al. The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Berry SR, et al. The effect of priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs on medical oncologists' practice in Ontario: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Regier DA, et al. Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. Soc Sci Med. 2014;122:130–9. Regier DA, et al. Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control. Soc Sci Med. 2014;122:130–9.
33.
go back to reference Goodin RE, Dryzek JS. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Polit Soc. 2006;34(2):219–44.CrossRef Goodin RE, Dryzek JS. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Polit Soc. 2006;34(2):219–44.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference MacKenzie M, Warren ME. In: Parkinson MJ, editor. Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems, in deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 2012. p. 95–124.CrossRef MacKenzie M, Warren ME. In: Parkinson MJ, editor. Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems, in deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 2012. p. 95–124.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Longstaff H, Burgess MM. Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(2):212–24.CrossRefPubMed Longstaff H, Burgess MM. Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19(2):212–24.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Bruni RA. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. CMAJ. 2008;179(1):15–18. Bruni RA. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. CMAJ. 2008;179(1):15–18.
Metadata
Title
Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada
Authors
Colene Bentley
Sarah Costa
Michael M. Burgess
Dean Regier
Helen McTaggart-Cowan
Stuart J. Peacock
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3117-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue