Back to Search Start Over

Moving towards accountability for reasonableness – A systematic exploration of the features of legitimate healthcare coverage decision-making processes using rare diseases and regenerative therapies as a case study

Authors :
Wagner, M
Samaha, D
Casciano, R
Brougham, M
Abrishami, P
Petrie, C
Avouac, B
Mantovani, L
Sarria-Santamera, A
Kind, P
Schlander, M
Tringali, M
Wagner M.
Samaha D.
Casciano R.
Brougham M.
Abrishami P.
Petrie C.
Avouac B.
Mantovani L.
Sarria-Santamera A.
Kind P.
Schlander M.
Tringali M.
Wagner, M
Samaha, D
Casciano, R
Brougham, M
Abrishami, P
Petrie, C
Avouac, B
Mantovani, L
Sarria-Santamera, A
Kind, P
Schlander, M
Tringali, M
Wagner M.
Samaha D.
Casciano R.
Brougham M.
Abrishami P.
Petrie C.
Avouac B.
Mantovani L.
Sarria-Santamera A.
Kind P.
Schlander M.
Tringali M.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study. Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations. Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended. Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation

Details

Database :
OAIster
Notes :
English
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1308934873
Document Type :
Electronic Resource