Why Do Adults Value EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Differently for Themselves Than for Children and Adolescents: A Think-Aloud Study.

OBJECTIVES: Following protocol, adults value EQ-5D-Y-3L health states from the perspective of a 10-year-old child. It remains unclear why adults value health states differently for themselves than for a 10-year-old child and whether the latter perspective is representative of adults' preferences for the 8 to 15 years age range of the EQ-5D-Y-3L. This study examines the reasons underlying (potential) differences in adults' health-state preferences for themselves, a 10-year-old child, and 15-year-old adolescent. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews using a think-aloud protocol with 25 participants who performed valuation tasks in July 2020 to August 2020. Using the Framework Method, we developed 28 categories grouped under 5 themes that illustrated the differences emerging from the interviews. RESULTS: Participants (A) deemed it more straining to perform valuation tasks for a 10-year-old child and 15-year-old adolescent than for themselves, (B) had a stable self-image, but varied in whom they imagined as 10-year-old child and 15-year-old adolescent, (C) focused on different dimensions and levels for a 15-year-old adolescent than for a 10-year-old child and themselves, (D) had various thoughts about nonhealth-related factors that influenced their preferences, and (E) gave up relatively few life-years for a 10-year-old child and 15-year-old adolescent, also to avoid others bearing a grudge against them. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that differences in adults' health-state preferences for themselves and a 10-year-old child largely result from differences in thoughts about nonhealth-related factors. They further indicate that health-state preferences for a 10-year-old child may not be representative of such preferences for the full EQ-5D-Y-3L age range.

Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost-effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision-makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision-makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision-makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real-world performance of devices.

Implementation of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries.

Experiences with coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes are fairly limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, which are usually late adopters of new health technologies. Our aim was to put forward recommendations on how CEE health technology assessment bodies and payer organizations can apply CED to reduce decision uncertainty on reimbursement of medical devices, with a particular focus on transferring the structure and data from CED schemes in early technology adopter countries in Western Europe. Structured interviews on the practices and feasibility of transferring CED schemes were conducted and subsequently, a draft tool for the systematic classification of decision alternatives and recommendations was developed. The decision tool was reviewed in a focus group discussion and validated within a wider group of CEE experts in a virtual workshop. Transferability assessment is needed in case of (1) joint implementation of a CED scheme; (2) transferring the structure of an existing CED scheme to a CEE country; (3) reimbursement decisions that are linked to outcomes of an ongoing CED scheme in another country and (4) real-world evidence transferred from completed CED schemes. Efficient use of available resources may be improved by adequately transferring evidence and policy tools from early technology adopter countries.

Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting.

CONTEXT: It remains unclear whether there would be societal support for a lifestyle criterion for the healthcare priority setting. This study examines the viewpoints of experts in healthcare and the public regarding support for a lifestyle-related decision criterion, relative to support for the currently applied criteria, in the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a Q methodology study in samples of experts in healthcare (n = 37) and the public (n = 44). Participants (total sample N = 81) ranked 34 statements that reflected currently applied decision criteria as well as a lifestyle criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. The ranking data were subjected to principal component analysis, followed by oblimin rotation, to identify clusters of participants with similar viewpoints. FINDINGS: We identified four viewpoints. Participants with Viewpoint 1 believe that treatments that have been proven to be effective should be reimbursed. Those with Viewpoint 2 believe that life is precious and every effort should be made to save a life, even when treatment still results in a very poor state of health. Those with Viewpoint 3 accept government intervention in unhealthy lifestyles and believe that individual responsibility should be taken into account in reimbursement decisions. Participants with Viewpoint 4 attribute importance to the cost-effectiveness of treatments; however, when priorities have to be set, treatment effects are considered most important. All viewpoints were supported by a mix of public and experts, but Viewpoint 1 was mostly supported by experts and the other viewpoints were mostly supported by members of the public. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified four distinct viewpoints on the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, each supported by a mix of experts and members of the public. There seems to be some, but limited, support for a lifestyle criterion-in particular, among members of the public. Experts seem to favour the decision criteria that are currently applied. The diversity in views deserves attention when policymakers want to adhere to societal preferences and increase policy acceptance.

Willingness to Pay for Health-Related Quality of Life Gains in Relation to Disease Severity and the Age of Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Decision-making frameworks that draw on economic evaluations increasingly use equity weights to facilitate a more equitable and fair allocation of healthcare resources. These weights can be attached to health gains or reflected in the monetary threshold against which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of (new) health technologies are evaluated. Currently applied weights are based on different definitions of disease severity and do not account for age-related preferences in society. However, age has been shown to be an important equity-relevant characteristic. This study examines the willingness to pay (WTP) for health-related quality of life (QOL) gains in relation to the disease severity and age of patients, and the outcome of the disease. METHODS: We obtained WTP estimates by applying contingent-valuation tasks in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (n = 2023). We applied random-effects generalized least squares regression models to estimate the effect of patients' disease severity and age, size of QOL gains, disease outcome (full recovery/death 1 year after falling ill), and respondent characteristics on the WTP. RESULTS: Respondents' WTP was higher for more severely ill and younger patients and for larger-sized QOL gains, but lower for patients who died. However, the relations were nonlinear and context dependent. Respondents with a lower age, who were male, had a higher household income, and a higher QOL stated a higher WTP for QOL gains. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that-if the aim is to align resource-allocation decisions in healthcare with societal preferences-currently applied equity weights do not suffice.

Think of the Children: A Discussion of the Rationale for and Implications of the Perspective Used for EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation.

OBJECTIVES: The recently published EQ-5D-Y valuation protocol prescribes the general public values EQ-5D-Y health states for a 10-year-old child. This child perspective differs from the individual perspective applied for valuation of adult EQ-5D instruments. This article discusses the rationale for and implications of applying a child perspective for EQ-5D-Y health state valuation. METHODS: This article was informed by an exploration of the normative and empirical literature on health state valuation. We identified and summarized key discussion points in a narrative review. RESULTS: Although valuing EQ-5D-Y health states from an individual perspective is feasible, it may be problematic for several reasons. The use of a child perspective implies that-rather than valuing one's own health-someone else's health is valued. This may require the projection of one's own beliefs, expectations, and preferences on others, which could change the decision processes underlying the elicited preferences. Furthermore, because preferences are obtained for a 10-year-old child, it is unclear if this given age as well as other (missing) information on the described child beneficiary (should) affect valuation of EQ-5D-Y health states. CONCLUSIONS: The change from an individual to a child perspective in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y will likely lead to differences in utilities. This has implications for the estimation of incremental health-related quality-of-life gains in economic evaluations of health technologies for children and adolescents and therefore might affect reimbursement decisions. Further research is necessary for gaining insight into the extent to which this impact is normatively and empirically justified.

Equity Weights for Priority Setting in Healthcare: Severity, Age, or Both?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in healthcare can be guided by both efficiency and equity principles. The latter principle is often explicated in terms of disease severity and, for example, defined as absolute or proportional shortfall. These severity operationalizations do not explicitly consider patients' age, even though age may be inextricably related to severity and an equity-relevant characteristic. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the relative strength of societal preferences for severity and age for informing allocation decisions in healthcare. METHODS: We elicited preferences for severity and age in a representative sample of the public in The Netherlands (N = 1025) by applying choice tasks and person-trade-off tasks in a design in which severity levels and ages varied both separately and simultaneously between patient groups. We calculated person trade-off ratios and, in addition, applied ordinary least squares regression models to aid interpretation of the ratios when both severity and age varied. RESULTS: Respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 2.46-3.50) to reimbursing treatment for relatively more severely ill and younger patients when preferences for both were elicited separately. When preferences were elicited simultaneously, respondents attached a higher weight (median of ratios: 1.98 and 2.42) to reimbursing treatment for relatively younger patients, irrespective of patients' severity levels. Ratios varied depending on severity level and age and were generally higher when the difference in severity and age was larger between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that severity operationalizations and equity weights based on severity alone may not align with societal preferences. Adjusting decision-making frameworks to reflect age-related societal preferences should be considered.

Unit Costs of Delinquent Acts for Use in Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents compete with other types of interventions for reimbursement from public funding. Within the youth mental health domain, delinquent acts impose high costs on society. These costs should be included in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. Although the relevance of these costs is recognized, they are often left out because the unit costs of delinquent acts are unknown. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study aims to provide a method for estimating the unit costs per perpetrator of 14 delinquent acts common in the Netherlands and included in self reported delinquency questionnaires: robbery/theft with violence, simple theft/pickpocketing, receiving stolen goods, destruction/vandalism of private or public property, disorderly conduct/discrimination, arson, cybercrime, simple and aggravated assault, threat, forced sexual contact, unauthorised driving, driving under the influence, dealing in soft drugs, and dealing in hard drugs. METHODS: Information on government expenditures and the incidence of crimes, number of perpetrators, and the percentage of solved and reported crimes was obtained from the national database on crime and justice of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Security, Statistics Netherlands, and the Council for the Judiciary in the Netherlands. We applied a top-down micro costing approach to calculate the point estimate of the unit costs for each of the delinquent acts and, subsequently, estimated the mean (SD) unit costs for each of the delinquent acts by taking random draws from a triangular distribution while taking into account a 10% uncertainty associated with the associated point estimate. RESULTS: The mean (SD) unit costs per delinquent act per perpetrator ranged between EUR495 (EUR1.30) for "Driving under the influence" and EUR33,813 (EUR78.30) for a "Cybercrime". These unit costs may be considered as outliers as most unit costs ranged between EUR 2,600 and EUR 13,500 per delinquent act per perpetrator. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to estimate the unit costs per delinquent act per perpetrator in the Netherlands. The results of this study enable the inclusion of government expenditures associated with crime and justice in economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents are increasingly subjected to economic evaluations. These evaluations are used to inform decisions concerning the allocation of scarce healthcare resources and should cover all the costs and benefits for society, including those associated with delinquent acts. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: The results of this study facilitate economic evaluations of youth mental health interventions aimed at reducing substance use and delinquency in adolescents, conducted from a societal perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Based on health-economic evaluations conducted in the field of youth mental health and the results of the current study, we recommend including the estimated unit costs in guidelines for health-economic evaluations conducted from a societal perspective. Future research could aim at examining whether these unit costs require regular updating. The methodology applied in this study allows for this.

Comparing heuristic valuation processes between health state valuation from child and adult perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Health state valuation assumes that respondents trade off between all aspects of choice tasks and maximize their utility. Yet, respondents may use heuristic valuation processes, i.e., strategies to simplify or avoid the trade-offs that are core to health state valuation. The objective of this study is to explore if heuristic valuation processes are more prevalent for valuation from a 10-year-old child's perspective compared to the use of an adult perspective. METHODS: We reused existing data in which EQ-5D health states were valued from adult and child perspectives with composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks. Our analyses focused on comparing completion time and responding patterns across both perspectives. We also explored how reflective of a set of heuristic strategies respondents' choices were in both perspectives. RESULTS: We found no evidence for systematic differences in completion time across perspectives. Generally, we find different responding patterns in child perspectives, e.g., more speeding, dominance violations, and clustering of utilities at 1.0, 0.8, and 0. Very few heuristic strategies provide a coherent explanation for the observed DCE responses. CONCLUSION: Our results provide some, albeit indirect, evidence for differences in heuristic valuation processes between perspectives, although not across all data sources. Potential effects of heuristic valuation processes, such as transfer of responsibility, may be identified through studying responding patterns in cTTO and DCE responses.

The role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions on health technologies in the Netherlands.

Health authorities using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for informing reimbursement decisions on health technologies increasingly require economic evaluations encompassing both CEA and budget impact analysis (BIA). Good Research Practices advocate that the economic and clinical assumptions underlying these analyses are aligned and consistently applied. Nonetheless, CEAs and BIAs often are stand-alone analyses used in different stages of the decision-making process. This article used policy reports and Ministerial correspondence to discuss and elucidate the role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands. The results indicate that CEAs and BIAs are both considered important for informing these decisions. While the requirements regarding CEAs-and application of the associated decision rule-are consistent across the different stages, the same does not hold for BIAs. Importantly, the definition of and evidence on budget impact differs between stages. Some important aspects (e.g. substitution and saving effects) typically are considered in the assessment and appraisal stages but are seemingly not considered in price negotiations and the final reimbursement decision. Further research is warranted to better understand why BIAs are not aligned with CEAs (e.g. in terms of underlying assumptions), vary in form and importance between stages, and do not have a clear relationship with the results of CEAs in the decision-making framework. Improving the understanding of the circumstances under which decision-makers attach a relatively larger or smaller weight to (different aspects of) budget impact may contribute to increasing the transparency, consistency, and optimality of reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands.

Examining the Effect of Depicting a Patient Affected by a Negative Reimbursement Decision in Healthcare on Public Disagreement with the Decision.

BACKGROUND: The availability of increasingly advanced and expensive new health technologies puts considerable pressure on publicly financed healthcare systems. Decisions to not-or no longer-reimburse a health technology from public funding may become inevitable. Nonetheless, policymakers are often pressured to amend or revoke negative reimbursement decisions due to the public disagreement that typically follows such decisions. Public disagreement may be reinforced by the publication of pictures of individual patients in the media. Our aim was to assess the effect of depicting a patient affected by a negative reimbursement decision on public disagreement with the decision. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in a representative sample of the public (n = 1008) in the Netherlands and assessed the likelihood of respondents' disagreement with policymakers' decision to not reimburse a new pharmaceutical for one of two patient groups. We presented a picture of one of the patients affected by the decision for one patient group and "no picture available" for the other group. The groups were described on the basis of patients' age, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and life expectancy (LE) before treatment, and HRQOL and LE gains from treatment. We applied random-intercept logit regression models to analyze the data. RESULTS: Our results indicate that respondents were more likely to disagree with the negative reimbursement decision when a picture of an affected patient was presented. Consistent with findings from other empirical studies, respondents were also more likely to disagree with the decision when patients were relatively young, had high levels of HRQOL and LE before treatment, and large LE gains from treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the effect of depicting individual, affected patients on public disagreement with negative reimbursement decisions in healthcare. Policymakers would do well to be aware of this effect so that they can anticipate it and implement policies to mitigate associated risks.

Obtaining preference scores for an abbreviated self-completion version of the Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI) to value therapy outcomes of systemic family interventions: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Systemic family interventions for adolescents with problems of substance use and/or delinquency are increasingly focused subject of economic evaluations. Treatment effects go beyond improvements in commonly measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The Teen-Addiction Severity Index (T-ASI) was identified as capable of capturing these broad outcomes. However, it lacks preference-based scores. An abbreviated self-completion version (ASC T-ASI) was created and validated, covering the T-ASI domains substance use, school, work, family, social relationships, justice, and mental health. This study aimed to obtain societal preference scores for the ASC T-ASI. METHODS: Preferences were elicited in a sample of the Dutch general adult population (n = 1500), using a web-based Discrete Choice Experiment. Choice tasks included two unlabeled alternatives with attributes and levels corresponding to the domains and levels of the ASC T-ASI. A pilot study (n = 106) informed priors, optimal presentation, and number of choice tasks applied in the main study. Data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model. RESULTS: Preference scores were logically ordered, with lower scores for worse ASC T-ASI states. Scores were most influenced by reductions in problems concerning the domains substance use, mental health, justice, and family. Tariffs were calculated for each ASC T-ASI state, ranging from 0 (worst situation) to 1 (best situation). CONCLUSIONS: The tariffs enable preference-based assessments of the broad effects of systemic family interventions for adolescents with problems of substance use and/or delinquency. The outcome reflects addiction-related rather than health-related utility and can be used next to generic HRQOL instruments in relevant economic evaluations. Given the source used for the preferences, interpretations and valuation of scores require attention.

Willingness to pay for quality and length of life gains in end of life patients of different ages.

Health gains are increasingly weighted in economic evaluations of new health technologies to guide resource-allocation decisions in healthcare. In Norway and the Netherlands weights are, for example, based on the disease severity of patients. In England and Wales, a higher weight is attached to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from life-extending end-of-life (EOL) treatments. Societal preferences for QALY gains in EOL patients are increasingly examined. Although the available evidence suggests that gains in health-related quality of life (QOL) may be preferred to gains in life expectancy (LE), little is known about the influence of EOL patients' age on these preferences. In this study, we examine the willingness to pay (WTP) for QOL and LE gains in EOL patients of different ages in a sample (n = 803) of the general public in the Netherlands. We found that WTP was relatively higher for QOL and LE gains in younger EOL patients. We further found indications suggesting that WTP may be relatively higher for QOL gains at the EOL, except for patients aged 20 for whom we observed a higher WTP for LE gains. Our results may inform discussions on attaching differential weights to QOL and LE gains in EOL patients of different ages with the objective to better align resource-allocation decisions with societal preferences.

Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges.

OBJECTIVES: Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization. METHODS: We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years. RESULTS: We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion. CONCLUSIONS: CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers' perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.

How does participating in a deliberative citizens panel on healthcare priority setting influence the views of participants?

A deliberative citizens panel was held to obtain insight into criteria considered relevant for healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands. Our aim was to examine whether and how panel participation influenced participants' views on this topic. Participants (n = 24) deliberated on eight reimbursement cases in September and October, 2017. Using Q methodology, we identified three distinct viewpoints before (T0) and after (T1) panel participation. At T0, viewpoint 1 emphasised that access to healthcare is a right and that prioritisation should be based solely on patients' needs. Viewpoint 2 acknowledged scarcity of resources and emphasised the importance of treatment-related health gains. Viewpoint 3 focused on helping those in need, favouring younger patients, patients with a family, and treating diseases that heavily burden the families of patients. At T1, viewpoint 1 had become less opposed to prioritisation and more considerate of costs. Viewpoint 2 supported out-of-pocket payments more strongly. A new viewpoint 3 emerged that emphasised the importance of cost-effectiveness and that prioritisation should consider patient characteristics, such as their age. Participants' views partly remained stable, specifically regarding equal access and prioritisation based on need and health gains. Notable changes concerned increased support for prioritisation, consideration of costs, and cost-effectiveness. Further research into the effects of deliberative methods is required to better understand how they may contribute to the legitimacy of and public support for allocation decisions in healthcare.

Presentation and validation of the Abbreviated Self Completion Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI): A preference-based measure for use in health-economic evaluations.

Economic evaluations of new youth mental health interventions require preference-based outcome measures that capture the broad benefits these interventions can have for adolescents. The Abbreviated Self Completion Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI) was developed to meet the need for such a broader measure. It assesses self reported problems in seven important domains of adolescents' lives, including school performance and family relationships, and is intended for use in economic evaluations of relevant interventions. The aim of the current study was to present the ASC T-ASI and examine its validity as well as its ability to distinguish between adolescents with and without problems associated with substance use and delinquency. The validation study was conducted in a sample of adolescents (n = 167) aged 12-18 years, who received in- or outpatient care in a youth mental health and (enclosed) care facility in the Netherlands. To examine its feasibility, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity, respondents completed the ASC T-ASI, as well as the EQ-5D-3L and SDQ at baseline and after a two-week interval using a counterbalanced method. The ASC T-ASI descriptive system comprises seven domains: substance use, school, work, family, social relationships, justice, and mental health, each expressing self reported problems on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from having 'no problem' to having a 'very large problem'). The majority of respondents (>70%) completed the ASC T-ASI within 10 minutes and appraised the questions as (very) easy and (very) comprehensible. Test-retest reliability was adequate (Kw values 0.26-0.55). Correlations with the supplementary measures were moderate to high (rs 0.30-0.50), suggesting convergent validity. The ASC T-ASI is a promising and valid measure for assessing self reported problems in important domains in adolescents' lives, allowing benefits beyond health and health-related quality of life to be included in economic evaluations of youth mental health interventions. Future studies of the ASC T-ASI should consider the comprehensiveness of its domains and sensitivity to change.

Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective.

BACKGROUND: In the context of priority setting, a differential cost-effectiveness threshold can be used to reflect a higher societal willingness to pay for quality-adjusted life-year gains in the worse off. However, uncertainty in the estimate of severity can lead to problems when evaluating the outcomes of cost-effectiveness analyses. OBJECTIVES: This study standardizes the assessment of severity, integrates its uncertainty with the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results and provides decision makers with a new estimate: the severity-adjusted probability of being cost effective. METHODS: Severity is expressed in proportional and absolute shortfall and estimated using life tables and country-specific EQ-5D values. We use the three severity-based cost-effectiveness thresholds (€20.000, €50.000 and €80.000, per QALY) adopted in The Netherlands. We exemplify procedures of integrating uncertainty with a stylized example of a hypothetical oncology treatment. RESULTS: Applying our methods, taking into account the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results and in the estimation of severity identifies the likelihood of an intervention being cost effective when there is uncertainty about the appropriate severity-based cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Higher willingness-to-pay thresholds for severe diseases are implemented in countries to reflect societal concerns for an equitable distribution of resources. However, the estimates of severity are uncertain, patient populations are heterogeneous, and this can be accounted for with the severity-adjusted probability of being cost effective proposed in this study. The application to the Netherlands suggests that not adopting the new method could result in incorrect decisions in the reimbursement of new health technologies.

Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting.

INTRODUCTION: Policy makers increasingly need to prioritise between competing health technologies or patient populations. When aiming to align allocation decisions with societal preferences, knowledge and operationalisation of such preferences is indispensable. This study examines the distribution of three views on healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, labelled "Equal right to healthcare", "Limits to healthcare", and "Effective and efficient healthcare", and their relationship with preferences in willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises. METHODS: A survey including four reimbursement scenarios was conducted in a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n = 261). Respondents were matched to one of the three views based on their agreement with 14 statements on principles for resource allocation. We tested for WTT differences between respondents with different views and applied logit regression models for examining the relationship between preferences and background characteristics, including views. RESULTS: Nearly 65% of respondents held the view "Equal right to healthcare", followed by "Limits to healthcare" (22.5%), and "Effective and efficient healthcare" (7.1%). Most respondents (75.9%) expressed WTT in at least one scenario and preferred gains in quality of life over life expectancy, maximising gains over limiting inequality, treating children over elderly, and those with adversity over those with an unhealthy lifestyle. Various background characteristics, including the views, were associated with respondents' preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents held an egalitarian view on priority setting, yet the majority was willing to prioritise regardless of their view. Societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting are related. However, respondents' views influence preferences differently in different reimbursement scenarios. As societal views and preferences are heterogeneous and may conflict, aligning allocation decisions with societal preferences remains challenging and any decision may be expected to receive opposition from some group in society.