Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study. METHODS: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations. RESULTS: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended. CONCLUSION: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context.

INTRODUCTION: Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options. METHODS: The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB, scale - 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed. RESULTS: Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study. CONCLUSION: The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts. FUNDING: IPSEN Pharma.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making. METHODS: The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing. RESULTS: The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives. FUNDING: Ipsen Pharma.

EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.

OBJECTIVES: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease. METHODS: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise. RESULTS: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions' values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of "alleviating or preventing patient suffering," "serving the whole population equitably," "upholding healthcare system sustainability," and "making decisions informed by evidence and context" but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating "Priorities" (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.