Abstract
Health technology assessment (HTA) is widely viewed as an essential component in good universal health coverage (UHC) decision-making in any country. Various HTA tools and metrics have been developed and refined over the years, including systematic literature reviews (Cochrane), economic modelling, and cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. However, while the cost-effectiveness ratio is faithfully reported in most full economic evaluations, it is viewed by many as an insufficient basis for reimbursement decisions. Emotional debates about the reimbursement of cancer drugs, orphan drugs, and end-of-life treatments have revealed fundamental disagreements about what should and should not be considered in reimbursement decisions. Part of this disagreement seems related to the equity-efficiency tradeoff, which reflects fundamental differences in priorities. All in all, it is clear that countries aiming to improve UHC policies will have to go beyond the capacity building needed to utilize the available HTA toolbox. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers a more comprehensive tool for reimbursement decisions where different weights of different factors/attributes can give policymakers important insights to consider. Sooner or later, every country will have to develop their own way to carefully combine the results of those tools with their own priorities. In the end, all policymaking is based on a mix of facts and values.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Colombo F, Tapay N. Private health insurance in OECD countries: the benefits and costs for individuals and health systems. OECD Health Working Papers. 2004;15:265–319.
Cutler DM. Equality, efficiency, and market fundamentals: the dynamics of international medical-care reform. J Econ Lit. 2002;40(3):881–906.
Hurst J. The reform of health care systems in seven OECD countries. Paper presented at the Second World Congress of Health Economics, Zurich (Switzerland). OECD; 1990 September.
OECD. Health at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing; 2013. p. 153–66.
Kotlikoff LJ, Hagist C. Who’s going broke? Comparing growth in healthcare costs in ten OECD countries. NBER Working Paper 2005(w11833)
Kanters TA, Hakkaart L, Rutten-van Mölken MP, Redekop WK. Access to orphan drugs in western Europe: can more systematic policymaking really help to avoid different decisions about the same drug? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):557–9.
EUnetHTA Work Package 8. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building. Barcelona (Spain): Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health Autonomous Government of Catalonia; 2008.
Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, Sullivan SD. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Quarter. 2010;88(2):256–76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00598.
Shah KK, Cookson R, Culyer AJ, Lettlejohns P. NICE’s social value judgements about equity in health and health care. Health Econ Policy Law. 2013;8(2):145–65.
Beattie A, Yates R, Noble DJ. Accelerating progress towards universal health coverage in asia and pacific: Improving the future for women and children. BMJ Glob Health. 2016;1(Suppl 2):i12–8.
Paolucci F. Economic rationales for the design of health care financing schemes. In: Health care financing and insurance: options for design. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 13–32.
Stolk E, Busschbach J. Cost effectiveness of sildenafil calls for political discussion. Br Med J. 2000;321:510.
Stolk EA, van Donselaar G, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Reconciliation of economic concerns and health policy: illustration of an equity adjustment procedure using proportional shortfall. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(17):1097–107.
Aizuddin AN, Sulong S, Aljunid SM. Factors influencing willingness to pay for healthcare. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(Suppl 2):A37.
Paolucci F, Schut E, van de Ven, WPMM. Economic rationales for the design of health care financing schemes. iHEA 2007 6th World Congress: Explorations in Health Economics Paper; 2007.
Cutler DM, Zeckhauser RJ. The anatomy of health insurance. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics, vol. 1A. Elsevier: Amsterdam; 2000. p. 563–644.
Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14.
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. 2014;32(4):345–65.
Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-Based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(5):435–46.
Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–81.
Mirelman A, Mentzakis E, Kinter E, Paolucci F, Fordham R, Ozawa S, Ferraz M, Baltussen R, Niessen L. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency. Val Health. 2012;15(3):534–9.
Paolucci F, Mentzakis E, Defechereux T, Niessen LW. Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China—a stated preference analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(8):1059–66.
Keane MP, Wasi N. The structure of consumer taste heterogeneity in revealed vs. stated preference data. Economics Papers 2013-W10. Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford; 2013.
Schroeder DA. Discrete choice models. In: Accounting and causal effects: econometric challenges. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 77–95.
Colapinto C, Jayaraman R, Marsiglio S. Multi-criteria decision analysis with goal programming in engineering, management and social sciences: a state-of-the art review. Ann Oper Res. 2017;251(1–2):7–40.
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, Rice N, ONeill P, Parkin D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. HERC research paper 01/13. Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford; 2014.
de Groot S, Rijnsburger AJ, Versteegh MM, Heymans JM, Kleijnen S, Redekop WK, Verstijnen IM. Which factors may determine the necessary and feasible type of effectiveness evidence? A mixed methods approach to develop an instrument to help coverage decision-makers. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e007241.
Piniazhkho O, Németh B. An analysis of the criteria used in existing or proposed MCDA models PRM202. ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting. May 2016.
Defechereux T, Paolucci F, Mirelman A, Youngkong S, Botten G, Hagen TP, Niessen LW. Health care priority setting in Norway: a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:39.
Redekop WK. Navigating the waters of economic evaluations of medical devices. ISPOR. Presentation at the annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Dublin, November 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Francesco Paolucci, Ken Redekop, Ayman Fouda, and Gianluca Fiorentini equally contributed to the conception and development of the theoretical framework, contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and contributed to the editing of the subsequent drafts of the manuscript in light of the comments made by the reviewers for this journal. All authors gave final approval of the version to be submitted.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Francesco Paolucci, Ken Redekop, Ayman Fouda, and Gianluca Fiorentini declare they have no conflicts of interest.
Funding
No funding was received for the paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Paolucci, F., Redekop, K., Fouda, A. et al. Decision Making and Priority Setting: The Evolving Path Towards Universal Health Coverage. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 15, 697–706 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0349-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0349-3