A perspective on life-cycle health technology assessment and real-world evidence for precision oncology in Canada.

Health technology assessment (HTA) can be used to make healthcare systems more equitable and efficient. Advances in precision oncology are challenging conventional thinking about HTA. Precision oncology advances are rapid, involve small patient groups, and are frequently evaluated without a randomized comparison group. In light of these challenges, mechanisms to manage precision oncology uncertainties are critical. We propose a life-cycle HTA framework and outline supporting criteria to manage uncertainties based on real world data collected from learning healthcare systems. If appropriately designed, we argue that life-cycle HTA is the driver of real world evidence generation and furthers our understanding of comparative effectiveness and value. We conclude that life-cycle HTA deliberation processes must be embedded into healthcare systems for an agile response to the constantly changing landscape of precision oncology innovation. We encourage further research outlining the core requirements, infrastructure, and checklists needed to achieve the goal of learning healthcare supporting life-cycle HTA.

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.

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.

Effect of Early Palliative Care on End-of-Life Health Care Costs: A Population-Based, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs. METHODS: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life. RESULTS: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month (P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations.

Health-related quality of life data collected in chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy represents a novel approach to cancer treatment, particularly advanced cancer. Much of the current evidence for the effectiveness of these therapies is associated with considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty poses a challenge for decision-makers and health systems responsible for granting patients access to these therapies. While the stage of development of the technology is a component of this uncertainty, it can be reduced with relevant data collection alongside clinical trials that is meaningful to patients and decision-makers. The objective of this research was to investigate the frequency with which HRQoL data is collected in currently registered clinical trials investigating CAR-T cancer treatment. METHODS: We searched for current CAR-T clinical trials at a registry compiled at United States National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (NLM) database. Trials were required to be active, recruiting, or completed. Trials were required to be phase I-IV, listed as 'interventional', and specific to cancer treatment. RESULTS: There were 424 clinical trials that were included in our analysis. The majority of these trials (76 %) were investigating CAR-T therapy in haematological malignancies. Of the included studies, only 29 (6.8 %) included HRQoL as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Only 25 (5.9 %) trials reported collecting data on overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation into clinical trials for CAR-T therapies has shown a failure to collect valuable HRQoL data. Sponsors of clinical trials need to appreciate that clinical trials for novel therapies need to collect relevant data that is paramount to informing decision-making and providing access to patients. POLICY STATEMENT: The effectiveness of innovative cancer therapies, such as CAR-T, remains associated with considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty can be reduced for decision-makers via the collection of critical HRQoL data. Sponsors of clinical trials should be incentivized to collect these data, particularly where the intention is to use that trial for a reimbursement submission and decision..

Comparing Childhood Cancer Care Costs in Two Canadian Provinces.

BACKGROUND: Cancer in children presents unique issues for diagnosis, treatment and survivorship care. Phase-specific comparative cost estimates are important for informing healthcare planning. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to compare direct medical costs of childhood cancer by phase of care in British Columbia (BC) and Ontario (ON). METHODS: For cancer patients diagnosed at <15 years of age and propensity-score-matched non-cancer controls, we applied standard costing methodology using population-based healthcare administrative data to estimate and compare phase-based costs by province. RESULTS: Phase-specific cancer-attributable costs were 2%-39% higher for ON than for BC. Leukemia pre-diagnosis costs and annual lymphoma continuing care costs were >50% higher in ON. Phase-specific in-patient hospital costs (the major cost category) represented 63%-82% of ON costs, versus 43%-73% of BC costs. Phase-specific diagnostic tests and procedures accounted for 1.0%-3.4% of ON costs and 2.8%-13.0% of BC costs. CONCLUSION: There are substantial cost differences between these two Canadian provinces, BC and ON, possibly identifying opportunities for healthcare planning improvement.

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.

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.

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.

Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens. METHODS: In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS IMPACTS CANCER CARE FUNDING DECISIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, EVIDENCE FROM 1998 TO 2008.

OBJECTIVES: The Priorities and Evaluation Committee (PEC) funding recommendations for new cancer drugs in British Columbia, Canada have been based on both clinical and economic evidence. The British Columbia Ministry of Health makes funding decisions. We assessed the association between cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs considered from 1998 to 2008 and the subsequent funding decisions. METHODS: All proposals submitted to the PEC between 1998 and 2008 were reviewed, and the association between cost-effectiveness and funding decisions was examined by (i) using logistic regression to test the hypothesis that interventions with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have a lower probability of receiving a positive funding decision and (ii) using parametric and nonparametric tests to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between the mean cost-effectiveness of funded versus not funded proposals. A sub-analysis was conducted to determine if the findings varied across different outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 149 proposals reviewed, 78 reported cost-effectiveness using various outcome measures. In the proposals that used life-years gained as the outcome (n = 22), a statistically significant difference of nearly $115,000 was observed between the mean ICERs for funded proposals ($42,006) and for unfunded proposals ($156,967). An odds ratio indicating higher ICERs have a lower probability of being funded was also found to be statistically significant (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Economic evidence appears to play a role in British Columbia cancer funding decisions from 1998 to 2008; other decision-making criteria may also have an important role in recommendations and subsequent funding decisions.

The Cost-Effectiveness of High-Risk Lung Cancer Screening and Drivers of Program Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer risk prediction models have the potential to make programs more affordable; however, the economic evidence is limited. METHODS: Participants in the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) were retrospectively identified with the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The high-risk subgroup was assessed for lung cancer incidence and demographic characteristics compared with those in the low-risk subgroup and the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan), which is an observational study that was high-risk-selected in Canada. A comparison of high-risk screening versus standard care was made with a decision-analytic model using data from the NLST with Canadian cost data from screening and treatment in the PanCan study. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess uncertainty and identify drivers of program efficiency. RESULTS: Use of the risk prediction tool developed from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial with a threshold set at 2% over 6 years would have reduced the number of individuals who needed to be screened in the NLST by 81%. High-risk screening participants in the NLST had more adverse demographic characteristics than their counterparts in the PanCan study. High-risk screening would cost $20,724 (in 2015 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 in Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained with a probability of 0.62. Cost-effectiveness was driven primarily by non-lung cancer outcomes. Higher noncurative drug costs or current costs for immunotherapy and targeted therapies in the United States would render lung cancer screening a cost-saving intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Non-lung cancer outcomes drive screening efficiency in diverse, tobacco-exposed populations. Use of risk selection can reduce the budget impact, and screening may even offer cost savings if noncurative treatment costs continue to rise.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Using Loss of Heterozygosity to Manage Premalignant Oral Dysplasia in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Management of low-grade oral dysplasias (LGDs) is complicated, as only a small percentage of lesions will progress to invasive disease. The current standard of care requires patients to undergo regular monitoring of their lesions, with intervention occurring as a response to meaningful clinical changes. Recent improvements in molecular technologies and understanding of the biology of LGDs may allow clinicians to manage lesions based on their genome-guided risk. METHODS: We used a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified care using a genomic assay. In the experimental arm, patients with LGDs were managed according to their risk profile using the assay, with low- and intermediate-risk patients given longer screening intervals and high-risk patients immediately treated with surgery. Patients in the comparator arm had standard care (biannual follow-up appointments at an oral cancer clinic). Incremental costs and outcomes in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated based on the results in each arm. RESULTS: The mean cost of assay-guided management was $8,123 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,973 to $23,062 in 2013 Canadian dollars) less than the cost of standard care. This difference was driven largely by reductions in resource use among people who did not develop cancer. Mean incremental effectiveness was 0.18 LYG (95% CI 0.08 to 0.39) or 0.64 QALY (95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). Sensitivity analysis suggests that these findings are robust to both expected and extreme variation in all parameter values. CONCLUSION: Use of the assay-guided management strategy costs less and is more effective than standard management of LGDs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study strongly suggest that the use of a risk-stratification method such as a genomic assay can result in improved quality-adjusted survival outcomes for patients with low-grade oral dysplasia (LGD). The use of such an assay in this study provides "precision medicine," allowing for a change in follow-up frequency or early intervention as compared with current standard care. As genomic technologies become more common in cancer care, it is hoped that such an assay, once validated, will become part of a new model for the standard management of LGDs in similar health systems.

Economic impact of genomic diagnostics for intermediate-risk acute myeloid leukaemia.

Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) is a rare but serious group of diseases that require critical decision-making for curative treatment. Over the past decade, scientific discovery has revealed dozens of prognostic gene mutations for AML while sequencing costs have plummeted. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of multigene integrative analysis (genomic analysis) with the standard molecular testing currently used for diagnosis of intermediate-risk AML. We used a decision analytic model with data for costs and outcomes from British Columbia, Canada, to assess the long-term (10-year) economic impacts. Our results suggest that genomic analysis would result in a 26% increase in the use of first-remission allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The resulting treatment decisions and downstream effects would come at an additional cost of $12 556 [2013 Canadian dollars (CAD)] per person and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be $49 493 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on quality of life during the long-term (5-10) years of survival, relapse rates following first-remission chemotherapy and the upfront cost of transplantation. Non-relapse mortality rates, short-term quality of life and the cost of genomic sequencing had only minor impacts. Further research on post-remission outcomes can lead to improvements in the cost-effectiveness of curative treatments for AML.

A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials.

BACKGROUND: Scientific advances have led to the discovery of novel treatments with high prices. The cost to publicly fund high-cost drugs may threaten the sustainability of drug budgets in different health care systems. In oncology, there are concerns that health-benefit gains are diminishing over time and that the economic evidence to support funding decisions is too limited. METHODS: To assess the additional costs and benefits gained from oncology drugs over time, we used treatment protocols and efficacy results from U.S. Food and Drug Administration records to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios for drugs approved to treat first- and second-line metastatic or advanced breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer during the years 1994-2013. We assessed reimbursement recommendations reached by health technology assessment agencies in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for 50 drugs approved by the U.S. regulator. The more recent approvals were often based on surrogate efficacy outcomes and had extremely high costs, often triple the costs of drugs approved in previous years. Over time, the effectiveness gains have increased for some cancer indications; however, for other indications (non-small cell lung and second-line colorectal cancer), the magnitude of gains in effectiveness decreased. Reimbursement recommendations for drugs with the highest cost-effectiveness ratios were the most inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the clinical benefits that oncology drugs offer as a function of their cost has become highly complex, and for some clinical indications, health benefits are diminishing over time. There is an urgent need for better economic evidence from oncology drug trials and systematic processes to inform funding decisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: High-cost oncology drugs may threaten the ability of health care systems to provide access to promising new drugs for patients. In order to make better drug-funding decisions and enable equitable access to breakthrough treatments, discussions in the oncology community should include economic evidence. This study summarizes the extra benefits and costs of newly approved drugs from pivotal trials during the postgenomic era of drug discovery. The reader will gain an appreciation of the need for economic evidence to make better drug-reimbursement decisions and the dynamics at play in today's oncology drug market.

'Real-world' health care priority setting using explicit decision criteria: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Health care decision making requires making resource allocation decisions among programs, services, and technologies that all compete for a finite resource pool. Methods of priority setting that use explicitly defined criteria can aid health care decision makers in arriving at funding decisions in a transparent and systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature and examine the use of criteria-based methods in 'real-world' health care allocation decisions. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to find examples of 'real-world' priority setting exercises that used explicit criteria to guide decision-making. RESULTS: We found thirty-three examples in the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using a variety of methods and criteria. Program effectiveness, equity, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and the number of beneficiaries emerged as the most frequently-used decision criteria. The relative importance of criteria in the 'real-world' trials differed from the frequency in preference elicitation exercises. Neither the decision-making method used, nor the relative economic strength of the country in which the exercise took place, appeared to have a strong effect on the type of criteria chosen. CONCLUSIONS: Health care decisions are made based on criteria related both to the health need of the population and the organizational context of the decision. Following issues related to effectiveness and affordability, ethical issues such as equity and accessibility are commonly identified as important criteria in health care resource allocation decisions.

Societal preferences for the return of incidental findings from clinical genomic sequencing: a discrete-choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. RESULTS: In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about high-penetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). INTERPRETATION: Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings.

Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control.

Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.