Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). RESULTS: On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Negative Molecular Diagnostics in Non-Syndromic Hearing Loss: What Next?

Congenital hearing loss has an impact on almost every facet of life. In more than 50% of cases, a genetic cause can be identified. Currently, extensive genetic testing is available, although the etiology of some patients with obvious familial hearing loss remains unknown. We selected a cohort of mutation-negative patients to optimize the diagnostic yield for genetic hearing impairment. In this retrospective study, 21 patients (17 families) with negative molecular diagnostics for non-syndromic hearing loss (gene panel analysis) were included based on a positive family history with a similar type of hearing loss. Additional genetic testing was performed using a whole exome sequencing panel (WESHL panel v2.0) in four families with the strongest likelihood of genetic hearing impairment. In this cohort (n = 21), the severity of hearing loss was most commonly moderate (52%). Additional genetic testing revealed pathogenic copy number variants in the STRC gene in two families. In summary, regular re-evaluation of hearing loss patients with presumably genetic etiology after negative molecular diagnostics is recommended, as we might miss newly discovered deafness genes. The switch from gene panel analysis to whole exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing for the testing of congenital hearing loss seems promising.