Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. METHODS: We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS: We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate cervical cancer in Canada by 2040, defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) lower than 4.0 per 100 000 women, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) identified 3 priorities for action: increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine coverage, implementing HPV-based screening and increasing screening participation, and improving follow-up after abnormal screen results. Our objective was to explore the impact of these priorities on the projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia. METHODS: We used OncoSim-Cervical, a microsimulation model led and supported by CPAC and developed by Statistics Canada that simulates HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer for the Canadian population. We updated model parameters to reflect BC's historical participation rates and program design. We simulated the transition to HPV-based screening and developed scenarios to explore the additional impact of achieving 90% vaccination coverage, 95% screening recruitment, 90% ontime screening, and 95% follow-up compliance. We projected cervical cancer incidence, ASIR, and year of elimination for the population of BC for 2023-2050. RESULTS: HPV-based screening at current vaccination, participation, and follow-up rates can eliminate cervical cancer by 2034. Increasing on-time screening and follow-up compliance could achieve this target by 2031. Increasing vaccination coverage has a small impact over this time horizon. INTERPRETATION: With the implementation of HPV-based screening, cervical cancer can be eliminated in BC before 2040. Efforts to increase screening participation and follow-up through this transition could potentially accelerate this timeline, but the transition from cytology- to HPV-based screening is fundamental to achieving this goal.

Human papillomavirus-based screening at extended intervals missed fewer cervical precancers than cytology in the HPV For Cervical Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial.

While cervix screening using cytology is recommended at 2- to 3-year intervals, given the increased sensitivity of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening to detect precancer, HPV-based screening is recommended every 4- to 5-years. As organized cervix screening programs transition from cytology to HPV-based screening with extended intervals, there is some concern that cancers will be missed between screens. Participants in HPV FOr CervicAL Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial received cytology (Cytology Arm) at 24-month intervals or HPV-based screening (HPV Arm) at 48-month intervals; both arms received co-testing (cytology and HPV testing) at exit. We investigated the results of the co-test to identify participants with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) who would not have had their precancer detected if they had only their arm's respective primary screen. In the Cytology Arm, 25/62 (40.3%) identified CIN2+s were missed by primary screen (ie, normal cytology/positive HPV test) and all 25 had normal cytology at the prior 24-month screen. In the HPV arm, three CIN2+s (3/49, 6.1%) were missed by primary screen (ie, negative HPV test/abnormal cytology). One of these three misses had low-grade cytology findings and would also not have been referred to colposcopy outside of the trial. Multiple rounds of cytology did not detect some precancerous lesions detected with one round of HPV-based screening. In our population, cytology missed more CIN2+, even at shorter screening intervals, than HPV-based screening. This assuages concerns about missed detection postimplementation of an extended interval HPV-based screening program. We recommend that policymakers consider a shift from cytology to HPV-based cervix screening.

Impact of TAILORx on chemotherapy prescribing and 21-gene recurrence score-guided treatment costs in a population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) confirmed the predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay in hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer and established thresholds for chemotherapy benefit in younger and older patients. Real-world chemotherapy use and RS-guided treatment costs in British Columbia post-TAILORx were examined. METHODS: The authors assembled 3 cohorts of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative patients with breast cancer defined by diagnosis: before RS funding (cohort 1 [C1]: January 2013-December 2013), after introduction of public RS funding (cohort 2 [C2]: July 2015-June 2016), and after TAILORx results (cohort 3 [C3]: July 2018-June 2019). Chemotherapy use was compared between cohorts by age and RS. Budgetary impacts of RS testing on chemotherapy costs were evaluated pre- and post-TAILORx. RESULTS: Among the 2066 patients included, chemotherapy use declined by 19% after RS funding was introduced and by an additional 23% after TAILORx publication (P = .001). Reduction in chemotherapy use was significant for RS 11-20 tumors (C3 vs C2, P = .004). There was no significant change in chemotherapy use in patients >50 years old (C2:12% vs C3:10%, P = .22). RS testing was associated with higher cost savings post-TAILORx, except in patients 70 to 80 years old, where testing led to excess costs when adjusting for the low rate of RS-concordant chemotherapy prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: TAILORx has had population-based impacts on chemotherapy prescribing in intermediate RS tumors and patients ≤50 years old. The lower clinical use of RS and increased spending in patients 70-80 years old highlights the importance of careful selection of older candidates for high-cost genomic testing. LAY SUMMARY: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) test helps predict whether patients with hormone-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative breast cancer are likely to benefit from chemotherapy. The recent trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx) (TAILORx) found that patients with intermediate RS tumors did not benefit from chemotherapy. The authors assessed whether TAILORx results translated to real-world changes in chemotherapy prescribing patterns. In this study, chemotherapy use decreased by 23% after TAILORx, with the greatest reductions seen among intermediate RS tumors and younger patients. In contrast, RS testing had lower clinical value and increased treatment costs in elderly patients, which requires further study to ensure optimal care for this age group.

"Bring the Hoses to Where the Fire Is!": Differential Impacts of Marginalization and Socioeconomic Status on COVID-19 Case Counts and Healthcare Costs.

OBJECTIVES: Local health leaders and the Director General of the World Health Organization alike have observed that COVID-19 "does not discriminate." Nevertheless, the disproportionate representation of people of low socioeconomic status among those infected resembles discrimination. This population-based retrospective cohort study examined COVID-19 case counts and publicly funded healthcare costs in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on marginalization. METHODS: Individuals with their first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, were linked to administrative databases and matched to negative/untested controls. Mean net (COVID-19-attributable) costs were estimated for 30 days before and after diagnosis, and differences among strata of age, sex, comorbidity, and measures of marginalization were assessed using analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: We included 28 893 COVID-19 cases (mean age 54 years, 56% female). Most cases remained in the community (20 545, 71.1%) or in long-term care facilities (4478, 15.5%), whereas 944 (3.3%) and 2926 (10.1%) were hospitalized, with and without intensive care unit, respectively. Case counts were skewed across marginalization strata with 2 to 7 times more cases in neighborhoods with low income, high material deprivation, and highest ethnic concentration. Mean net costs after diagnosis were higher for males ($4752 vs $2520 for females) and for cases with higher comorbidity ($1394-$7751) (both P < .001) but were similar across levels of most marginalization dimensions (range $3232-$3737, all P ≥ .19). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that allocating resources unequally to marginalized individuals may improve equality in outcomes. It highlights the importance of reducing risk of COVID-19 infection among marginalized individuals to reduce overall costs and increase system capacity.

The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G): a Canadian valuation study.

INTRODUCTION: Utility instruments are used to assess patients' health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis (CUA). However, for cancer patients, the dimensions of generic utility instruments may not capture all the information relevant to the impact of cancer. Cancer-specific utilities provide a useful alternative. Under the auspices of the Multi-Attribute Utility in Cancer Consortium, a cancer-specific utility algorithm was derived from the FACT-G. The new FACT-8D contains eight dimensions: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, support from family/friends, sadness, and worry health will get worse. The aim of the study was to obtain a Canadian value set for the FACT-8D. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was administered to a Canadian general population online panel, quota sampled by age, sex, and province/territory of residence. Respondents provided responses to 16 choice sets. Each choice set consisted of two health states described by the FACT-8D dimensions plus an attribute representing survival duration. Sample weights were applied and the responses were analyzed using conditional logistic regression, parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life year framework. The results were converted into utility weights by evaluating the marginal rate of substitution between each level of each FACT-8D dimension with respect to duration. RESULTS: 2228 individuals were recruited. The analysis dataset included n = 1582 individuals, who completed at least one choice set; of which, n = 1501 completed all choice sets. After constraining to ensure monotonicity in the utility function, the largest decrements were for the highest levels of pain (- 0.38), nausea (- 0.30), and problems doing work (- 0.23). The decrements of the remaining dimensions ranged from - 0.08 to - 0.18 for their highest levels. The utility of the worst possible health state was defined as - 0.65, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: The largest impacts on utility included three generic dimensions (i.e., pain, support, and work) and nausea, a symptom caused by cancer (e.g., brain tumours, gastrointestinal tumours, malignant bowel obstruction) and by common treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, opioid analgesics). This may make the FACT-8D more informative for CUA evaluating in many cancer contexts, an assertion that must now be tested empirically in head-to-head comparisons with generic utility measures.

Vaccine nationalism will persist: global public goods need effective engagement of global citizens.

Covid-19 presents a unique opportunity to transform democratic engagement in the governance of global public goods. In this paper, I describe a global public goods framework and how it relates to Covid-19 vaccines, and summarize some of the global responses to Covid-19. I discuss some of the global threats to health and prosperity posed by the inequitable distribution of vaccines, and propose transformative thinking to democratically engage citizens in the governance of global public goods. In recent years, public-private partnerships and philanthropic organizations have successfully stepped in to help international organizations like the UN and WHO provide global public goods, but they are not democratically elected or publicly accountable. Global public goods are critical to addressing Covid-19, future pandemic preparedness, global health policy, health equity, and the unfolding climate crisis. To make us more resistant and resilient to future global health crises we need transformative thinking to democratically engage global citizens. We need to lay the foundations for a 'global social contract' on global public goods.

Direct medical costs of young-onset colorectal cancer: a worldwide systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Given the rising incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) among individuals younger than 50 years old, understanding the economic burden of yCRC is required to inform the delivery of healthcare services. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the direct medical costs of yCRC, and where relevant average-age onset CRC (aCRC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to May 2022 for original, peer-reviewed studies, that reported direct medical costs (e.g., chemotherapy, radiotherapy, outpatient visits, inpatient care, prescription medications) for yCRC and aCRC. We used a modified version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist to appraise the studies. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: We included 14 studies from 10 countries, including the USA, England, France, Korea, Vietnam, China, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan. Five studies focused on prevalent disease and reported annualized per-capita cost of prevalent yCRC, ranging from $2,263 to $16,801 and $1,412 to $14,997 among yCRC and aCRC cases, respectively. Nine studies estimated the cost of incident disease. Synthesis of per-capita costs incurred 12 months following colorectal cancer diagnosis ranged from $23,368 to $89,945 for yCRC and $19,929 to $67,195 for aCRC. Five studies used multivariable approaches to compare costs associated with yCRC and aCRC, four showed no differences and one suggested greater costs with yCRC. CONCLUSION: Our synthesis of direct medical costs of yCRC across multiple jurisdictions provide relevant information for healthcare decisions, including on-going considerations for expanding CRC screening strategies to younger adults.

Trajectory of psychosocial symptoms among home care patients with cancer at end-of-life.

PURPOSE: Understanding the end-of-life psychosocial needs of cancer patients at home is a knowledge gap. This study describes the trajectory of psychosocial symptoms in the last 6 months of life among cancer decedents who were receiving home care. METHODS: Observational population-based cohort study of cancer decedents who were receiving home care services between 2007 and 2014. Decedents had to have at least one home care assessment in the last 6 months of life for inclusion. Outcomes were the presence of psychosocial symptoms (i.e., anxiety, loneliness, depression, social decline, caregiver distress, and cognitive decline) at each week before death. RESULTS: Our cohort included 27,295 unique cancer decedents (30,368 assessments), of which 58% died in hospital. Fifty-six percent were older than 74, and 47% were female. The prevalence of all symptoms increased approaching death, except loneliness. Social decline (48%-78%) was the most prevalent psychosocial symptom, though loneliness was reported in less than 10% of the cohort. Caregiver distress rose over time from 15%-27%. A third of the cohort reported issues with cognitive impairment. Multivariate regression showed that physical symptoms such as uncontrolled pain, impairment in independent activities of daily living, and a high level of health instability all significantly worsened the odds of having a psychosocial symptom in the last 3 months of life. CONCLUSION: In this large home care cancer cohort, trajectories of psychosocial symptoms worsened close to death. Physical symptoms, such as uncontrolled pain, were associated with having worse psychosocial symptoms at end of life.

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire. METHODS: We derived a descriptive system based on a subset of the 27-item FACT-G. Item selection was informed by psychometric analyses of existing FACT-G data (n = 6912) and by patient input (n = 82). We then conducted an online valuation survey, with participants recruited via an Australian general population online panel. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used, with attributes being the HRQL dimensions of the descriptive system and survival duration, and 16 choice-pairs per participant. Utility decrements were estimated with conditional logit and mixed logit modeling. RESULTS: Eight HRQL dimensions were included in the descriptive system: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, social support, sadness, and future health worry; each with 5 levels. Of 1737 panel members who accessed the valuation survey, 1644 (95%) completed 1 or more DCE choice-pairs and were included in analyses. Utility decrements were generally monotonic; within each dimension, poorer HRQL levels generally had larger utility decrements. The largest utility decrements were for the highest levels of pain (-0.40) and nausea (-0.28). The worst health state had a utility of -0.54, considerably worse than dead. CONCLUSIONS: A descriptive system and preference-based scoring approach were developed for the FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the FACT-G. The Australian value set is the first of a series of country-specific value sets planned that can facilitate cost-utility analyses based on items from the FACT-G and related FACIT questionnaires containing FACT-G items.

Addressing prioritization in healthcare amidst a global pandemic.

Trade-offs abound in healthcare yet depending on where one stands relative to the stages of a pandemic, choice making may be more or less constrained. During the early stages of COVID-19 when there was much uncertainty, healthcare systems faced greater constraints and focused on the singular criterion of "flattening the curve." As COVID-19 progressed and the first wave diminished (relatively speaking depending on the jurisdiction), more opportunities presented for making explicit choices between COVID and non-COVID patients. Then, as the second wave surged, again decision makers were more constrained even as more information and greater understanding developed. Moving out of the pandemic to recovery, choice making becomes paramount as there are no set rules to lean back into historical patterns of resource allocation. In fact, the opportunity at hand, when using explicit tools for priority setting based on economic and ethical principles, is significant.

Disease detection at the 48-month exit round of the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial in women per-protocol eligible for routine screening.

HPV FOCAL is a randomized control trial of cervical cancer screening. The intervention arm received baseline screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and the control arm received liquid-based cytology (LBC) at baseline and 24 months. Both arms received 48-month exit HPV and LBC cotesting. Exit results are presented for per-protocol eligible (PPE) screened women. Participants were PPE at exit if they had completed all screening and recommended follow-up and had not been diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) earlier in the trial. Subgroups were identified based upon results at earlier trial screening. There were 9,457 and 9,552 and women aged 25-65 randomized to control and intervention and 7,448 (77.8%) and 8,281 (86.7%), respectively, were PPE and screened. Exit cotest results were similar (p = 0.11) by arm for PPE and the relative rate (RR) of CIN2+ for intervention vs. control was RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56-1.23). The RR for CIN2+ comparing intervention women baseline HPV negative to control women with negative cytology at baseline and at 24 months, was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.43-1.06). PPE women who had a negative or CIN1 colposcopy in earlier rounds had elevated rates (per 1,000) of CIN2+ at exit, control 31 (95% CI: 14-65) and intervention 43 (95% CI: 25-73). Among PPE women HPV negative at exit LBC cotesting identified little CIN2+, Rate = 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1-0.7). This per-protocol analysis found that screening with HPV using a 4-year interval is as safe as LBC with a 2-year screening interval. LBC screening in HPV negative women at exit identified few additional lesions.

Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) evaluates and makes recommendations for the reimbursement of cancer drugs. One component of its recommendation is based on an economic evaluation, which typically takes the form of a cost-utility analysis. A cost-utility analysis measures the effects of competing therapies with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The data for this calculation typically come from generic, preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this review is to determine the frequency at which HRQOL data are collected alongside cancer drug trials and used in the cost-utility analysis submitted to the CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR). METHODS: Submissions between 2015 and 2018 to pCODR, the group charged with evaluating cancer drug submissions at CADTH, were reviewed. All pCODR submissions, either in progress or completed, were publicly available online. The search was restricted to completed evaluations. RESULTS: Forty-three submissions met the inclusion criteria. The incremental gain in QALYs in most submissions from the new technology was small (median incremental gain, 0.86; interquartile range, 0.6-1.39). More than half of the submissions (56%) did not include original data on HRQOL, with most relying on previous studies of variable relevance and quality. Re-analyses by pCODR based on concerns over HRQOL data used in the submitted model were common (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Drug manufacturers do not consistently collect data on HRQOL alongside clinical trials and instead rely on evidence generated in previous studies to inform cost-utility analyses. These findings should induce manufacturers to collect original HRQOL data that are simultaneously relevant to patients and decision makers.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Conducting clinical trials-costs, impacts, and the value of clinical trials networks: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A significant barrier to conducting clinical trials is their high cost, which is driven primarily by the time and resources required to activate trials and reach accrual targets. The high cost of running trials has a substantial impact on their long-term feasibility and the type of clinical research undertaken. METHODS: A scoping review of the empirical literature on the costs associated with conducting clinical trials was undertaken for the years 2001-2015. Five reference databases were consulted to elicit how trials costs are presented in the literature. A review instrument was developed to extract the content of in-scope papers. Findings were characterized by date and place of publication, clinical disease area, and network/cooperative group designation, when specified. Costs were captured and grouped by patient accrual and management, infrastructure, and the opportunity costs associated with industry funding for trials research. Cost impacts on translational research and health systems were also captured, as were recommendations to reduce trial expenditures. Since articles often cited multiple costs, multiple cost coding was used during data extraction to capture the range and frequency of costs. RESULTS: A total of 288 empirical articles were included. The distribution of reported costs was: patient management and accrual costs (132 articles), infrastructure costs (118 articles) and the opportunity costs of industry sponsorship (72 articles). 221 articles reported on the impact of undertaking costly trials on translational research and health systems; of these, the most frequently reported consequences were to research integrity (52% of articles), research capacity (36% of articles) and running low-value trials (34% of articles). 254 articles provided recommendations to reduce trial costs; of these, the most frequently reported recommendations related to improvements in: operational efficiencies (33% of articles); patient accrual (24% of articles); funding for trials and transparency in trials reporting (18% of articles, each). CONCLUSION: Key findings from the review are: 1) delayed trial activation has costs to budgets and research; 2) poor accrual leads to low-value trials and wasted resources; 3) the pharmaceutical industry can be a pragmatic, if problematic, partner in clinical research; 4) organizational know-how and successful research collaboration are benefits of network/cooperative groups; and 5) there are spillover benefits of clinical trials to healthcare systems, including better health outcomes, enhanced research capacity, and drug cost avoidance. There is a need for more economic evaluations of the benefits of clinical research, such as health system use (or avoidance) and health outcomes in cities and health authorities with institutions that conduct clinical research, to demonstrate the affordability of clinical trials, despite their high cost.

Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.

BACKGROUND: Decisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities. METHODS: In September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals' willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes. RESULTS: Participants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or "grandfathering" approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders.

OBJECTIVES: Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task. METHODS: We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions. RESULTS: GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; "total cost" was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier. CONCLUSIONS: Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.

BACKGROUND: Health system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system. METHODS: An approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically. RESULTS: A total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live. CONCLUSIONS: The next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.

Evidence, values, and funding decisions in Canadian cancer systems.

Expenditure on cancer therapies is rising rapidly in many countries, particularly for cancer drugs. In recent years, this has stimulated a global debate among the public, patients, clinicians, decision-makers, and the pharmaceutical industry on value, affordability, and sustainability propositions relating to cancer therapies. In this article, we discuss some recent developments in evidence-based approaches to priority setting and resource allocation in Canadian cancer systems. These developments include new methods for deliberative public engagement, generating and using real-world evidence, multi-criteria decision analysis, and handling uncertainty with evidence for gene therapies.

Temporal changes in treatments and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction among cancer survivors and patients without cancer, 1995 to 2013.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information about treatment and mortality trends after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for cancer survivors (CS). METHODS: In this population-based study, the authors compared temporal trends of treatments and outcomes (mortality, nonfatal cardiovascular outcomes), among CS and patients without cancer (the noncancer patient [NCP] group) with AMI in Ontario (Canada) using inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW)-adjusted modeling. RESULTS: Of 270,089 patients with AMI (22,907 CS, 247,182 NCP, 1995-2013; median follow-up, 10.1 and 11.0 years, respectively), the use of invasive coronary strategies and pharmacotherapies increased and mortality declined for CS and NCP (all Ptrend < .001). At 30 days after AMI, there was no difference between CS and NCP in the receipt of coronary angiography (incidence risk ratio [IRR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.01; P = .23), percutaneous coronary intervention (IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.02; P = .29), or bypass (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .11). At 90 days after AMI, there was no difference in the receipt of ß-blockers, clopidogrel, or nitrates; but CS were less often prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers and statins. CS had higher all-cause mortality at 30 days (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.12; 95% CI, 1.07-1.17; P < .001), at 1 year (1.16; 95% CI, 1.12-1.20; P < .001), and long term (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.25; P < .001) and had a greater risk of heart failure (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001), but not myocardial re-infarction (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01; P = .22) or stroke (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.16; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: Among CS and NCP with AMI in Ontario, similar improvements in mortality and receipt of treatments were observed between 1995 and 2013. However, compared with NCP, CS had a higher risk of mortality and heart failure. Cancer 2018;124:1269-78. © 2017 American Cancer Society.