Search

Objectives This study aimed to investigate whether the profit margins of pharmaceuticals would influence the outcome of reimbursement decisions within the Dutch policy context. Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment among 58 Dutch decision makers. In 20 choice sets, we asked respondents to indicate which of 2 pharmaceutical treatment options they would select for reimbursement. Options were described using 5 attributes (disease severity, incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year, health gain, budget impact, and profit margin) with 3 levels each. Additionally, cognitive debriefing questions were presented, and for validation debriefing, interviews were conducted. Choice data were analyzed using mixed logit models, also to calculate marginal effects and choice probabilities. Results Results indicated that the specified levels of profit margins significantly influenced choices made. Decision makers were less likely to reimburse a product with a higher profit margin. The relative importance of profit margins was lower than that of the included traditional health technology assessment criteria, but not negligible. When asked directly, 61% of respondents indicated that profit margin should play a role in reimbursement decision making, although concerns about feasibility and the connection to price negotiations were voiced. Conclusions Our results suggest that if available to decision makers the profit margin of pharmaceutical products would influence reimbursement decisions within the Dutch policy context. Higher profit margins would reduce the likelihood of reimbursement. Whether adding profit margin as an additional, explicit criterion to the health technology assessment decision framework would be feasible and desirable is open to further exploration.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for effective infectious disease outbreak prevention. This could entail installing an integrated, international early warning system, aiming to contain and mitigate infectious diseases outbreaks. The amount of resources governments should spend on such preventive measures can be informed by the value citizens attach to such a system. This was already recognized in 2018, when a contingent valuation willingness to pay (WTP) experiment was fielded, eliciting the WTP for such a system in six European countries. We replicated that experiment in the spring of 2020 to test whether and how WTP had changed during an actual pandemic (COVID-19), taking into account differences in infection rates and stringency of measures by government between countries. Overall, we found significant increases in WTP between the two time points, with mean WTP for an early warning system increasing by about 50% (median 30%), from around €20 to €30 per month. However, there were marked differences between countries and subpopulations, and changes were only partially explained by COVID-19 burden. We discuss possible explanations for and implication of our findings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10198-021-01353-6.

People do not only care about maximizing health gains but also about their distribution. For example, they give more weight to younger patients than older patients. This pilot study aims to investigate if age weighting is reinforced by loss aversion if young people are falling behind one's perceived ‘normal’ quality of life (QoL), while older people do not. We apply a person trade-off method in a large representative sample (n = 990) to estimate age weighting factors. We also measure QoL levels that individuals regard as ‘normal’ for different ages, serving as reference points. We observe a considerable amount of age weighting, with 20-year-old patients on average receiving 1.7 times as much weight as 80-year-old patients. Perceived ‘normal’ QoL rapidly decreases with age of a patient. Older people are more optimistic about what constitutes ‘normal QoL’ than younger people, but they express a faster decline in normal QoL due to aging. Respondents who view all improvements to be gain enlarging show the least age weighting, but loss aversion cannot explain the results. Still, one's age-related reference level is an important predictor of age weights. Given the explorative nature of this study, further studies are called for to generate more robust evidence.

Carer quality of life is increasingly considered alongside patient quality of life in economic evaluation. Important questions remain about how to value carer and patient quality of life effects alongside one another. In this study, we estimated the relative social value of two conceptualisations of carer quality of life (health-related and care-related) compared to patient quality of life. Relative valuations were estimated using a person trade-off (PTO) study with 990 representative members of the UK public. Participants chose between hypothetical services that improved the quality of life of carers and patients, iterating to a point of indifference. Overall 84% of participants completing the task were willing to trade patient and carer quality of life effects. Relative to a reference point of 1 for patient health-related quality of life, we estimated a social value of 0.74 for carer health-related quality of life effects and 0.69 for carer care-related quality of life effects. In conclusion, public preferences appear to support the inclusion of carer quality of life effects within economic evaluation. The results provide a means to value different carer quality of life outcomes in economic evaluation, where such values are needed and deemed appropriate.