Increasing the Legitimacy of Tough Choices in Healthcare Reimbursement: Approach and Results of a Citizen Forum in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Some studies in the Netherlands have gauged public views on principles for healthcare priority setting, but they fall short of comprehensively explaining the public disapproval of several recent reimbursement decisions. OBJECTIVE: To obtain insight into citizens' preferences and identify the criteria they would propose for decisions pertaining to the benefits package of basic health insurance. METHODS: Twenty-four Dutch citizens were selected for participation in a Citizen Forum, which involved 3 weekends. Deliberations took place in small groups and in plenary, guided by 2 moderators, on the basis of 8 preselected case studies, which participants later compared and prioritized under the premise that not all treatments can or need to be reimbursed. Participants received opportunities to inform themselves through written brochures and live interactions with 3 experts. RESULTS: The Citizen Forum identified 16 criteria for inclusion or exclusion of treatments in the benefits package; they relate to the condition (2 criteria), treatment (11 criteria), and individual characteristics of those affected by the condition (3 criteria). In most case studies, it was a combination of criteria that determined whether or not participants favored inclusion of the treatment under consideration in the benefits package. Participants differed in their opinion about the relative importance of criteria, and they had difficulty in operationalizing and trading off criteria to provide a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Informed citizens are prepared to make and, to a certain extent, capable of making reasoned choices about the reimbursement of health services. They realize that choices are both necessary and possible. Broad public support and understanding for making tough choices regarding the benefits package of basic health insurance is not automatic: it requires an investment.

Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Consumers may purchase commercial diagnostic tests (CDT) without prior doctor consultation. This paper analyzes three CDT markets-commercial cholesterol tests (CCT), direct-to-consumer genetic health tests (DGT) and total body scans (TBS)-in the context of the universal, collectively financed health care system of the Netherlands. METHODS: An online willingness-to-pay (WTP) questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 1500 Dutch consumers. Using contingent valuation (CV) methodology, an array of bids for three self-tests were presented to the respondents. The results were extrapolated to the Dutch population and compared to current prices and follow-up medical utilization, allowing analysis from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Overall, 880 of 1500 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 59%). Of the respondents, 26-44% were willing to pay a positive amount for the CDT. Willingness-to-pay was correlated to age and household income, but not to health status or prior experience with these tests. At mean current prices of €29 for CCT, €229 for DGT and €1,650 for TBS, 3.3%, 2.5%, and 1.1%, were willing to purchase a CCT, DGT, and TBS, respectively. All three CDT resulted in net costs to the health system, estimated at €5, €16, and €44 per test, respectively. Reducing volumes by 90,000 CCTs (19%), 19,000 DGTs (5%) and 4,000 TBSs (2.5%) in 2019 would optimize welfare. CONCLUSION: Most respondents were unwilling to consume CDT at any price or only if the CDT were provided for free. However, for a small group of consumers, societal costs exceed private benefits. Therefore, CDT regulation could provide small welfare gains.

Cascade of decisions meet personal preferences in sciatica treatment decisions.

STUDY DESIGN: An in-depth interview study including patients, general practitioners, neurologists and neurosurgeons. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight in decision-making in sciatica care, by identifying patients' and physicians' preferences for treatment options, and the differences between and within both groups. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Sciatica is a self-limiting condition, which can be treated both conservatively and surgically. The value of both options has been disputed, and the care pathway is known for a substantial amount of practice variation. Most Dutch patients are taken care of by general practitioners before they are referred to hospital-based neurologists, who might refer to a neurosurgeon, who can perform a surgical intervention. Dutch sciatica care thus follows the principles of stepped care, and a cascade of decisions precedes surgery. Better understanding of the decision-making within this cascade might reveal opportunities to improve shared decision-making and to reduce unwarranted practice variation. METHODS: Interviews with 10 patients and 22 physicians were analysed thematically. RESULTS: While physicians were confident of their clinical diagnosis, patients preferred confirmation trough imaging to exclude other possible explanations. Furthermore, many patients showed reluctance towards the use of (strong) opioids, while all physicians favoured this and underlined the benefits of opioids in the management of sciatica complaints, to buy time and to allow patients to recover naturally. Finally, individual physicians differed strongly in their opinion on benefits and optimal timing of surgical treatment and epidural injections. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch sciatica care is characterised by a cascade of decisions preceding surgery. Preferences differ within and between patients and physicians, which adds to the practice variation. To improve decision-making, physicians and patients should invest not necessarily more in the exchange of options or preferences, but in making sure the other understands the rationale behind them.

Medicalization Defined in Empirical Contexts - A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Medicalization has been a topic of discussion and research for over four decades. It is a known concept to researchers from a broad range of disciplines. Medicalization appears to be a concept that speaks to all, suggesting a shared understanding of what it constitutes. However, conceptually, the definition of medicalization has evolved over time. It is unknown how the concept is applied in empirical research, therefore following research question was answered: How is medicalization defined in empirical research and how do the definitions differ from each other? METHODS: We performed a scoping review on the empirical research on medicalization. The 5 steps of a scoping review were followed: (1) Identifying the research question; (2) Identifying relevant studies; (3) Inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) Charting the data; and (5) Collating, summarizing and reporting the results. The screening of 3027 papers resulted in the inclusion of 50 empirical studies in the review. RESULTS: The application of the concept of medicalization within empirical studies proved quite diverse. The used conceptual definitions could be divided into 10 categories, which differed from each other subtly though importantly. The ten categories could be placed in a framework, containing two axes. The one axe represents a continuum from value neutral definitions to value laden definitions. The other axe represents a continuum from a micro to a macro perspective on medicalization. CONCLUSION: This review shows that empirical research on medicalization is quite heterogeneous in its definition of the concept. This reveals the richness and complexity of medicalization, once more, but also hinders the comparability of studies. Future empirical research should pay more attention to the choice made with regard to the definition of medialization and its applicability to the context of the study.

Medicalisation and Overdiagnosis: What Society Does to Medicine.

The concept of overdiagnosis is a dominant topic in medical literature and discussions. In research that targets overdiagnosis, medicalisation is often presented as the societal and individual burden of unnecessary medical expansion. In this way, the focus lies on the influence of medicine on society, neglecting the possible influence of society on medicine. In this perspective, we aim to provide a novel insight into the influence of society and the societal context on medicine, in particularly with regard to medicalisation and overdiagnosis.