The Challenge of Conditional Reimbursement: Stopping Reimbursement Can Be More Difficult Than Not Starting in the First Place!

BACKGROUND: Conditional reimbursement of new health technologies is increasingly considered as a useful policy instrument. It allows gathering more robust evidence regarding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new technologies without delaying market access. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that ending reimbursement and provision of a technology when it proves not to be effective or cost-effective in practice may be difficult. OBJECTIVES: To investigate how policymakers and the general public in the Netherlands value removing a previously reimbursed treatment from the basic benefits package relative to not including a new treatment. METHODS: To investigate this issue, we used discrete-choice experiments. Mixed multinomial logit models were used to analyze the data. Compensating variation values and changes in probability of acceptance were calculated for withdrawal of reimbursement. RESULTS: The results show that, ceteris paribus, both the general public (n = 1169) and policymakers (n = 90) prefer a treatment that is presently reimbursed over one that is presently not yet reimbursed. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, ending reimbursement is more difficult than not starting reimbursement in the first place, both for policymakers and for the public. Loss aversion is one of the possible explanations for this result. Policymakers in health care need to be aware of this effect before engaging in conditional reimbursement schemes.

Health or Happiness? A Note on Trading Off Health and Happiness in Rationing Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations typically value the effects of an intervention in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, which combine length and health-related quality of life. It has been suggested that economic evaluations should incorporate broader outcomes than health-related quality of life. Broader well-being, for instance measured as happiness, could be a better measure of the overall welfare effects in patients because of treatment. An underexplored question is whether and how people trade off information on health and broader outcomes from treatment in rationing decisions. OBJECTIVES: This article presents the results of a first experiment aimed at exploring such trade-offs between health and happiness. METHODS: We used a Web-based questionnaire in a representative sample of the public from the Netherlands (N = 1015). People made choices between two groups of patients differing in terms of their health and happiness levels before treatment and gains from treatment. RESULTS: The results showed that about half the respondents were willing to discriminate between patient groups on the basis of their health and happiness levels before and after treatment. In the trader group, health gains were considered somewhat more important than happiness gains. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both health and happiness levels of patients may play a role in priority setting.

Are some QALYs more equal than others?

Including societal preferences in allocation decisions is an important challenge for the health care sector. Here, we present results of a phased discrete choice experiment investigating the impact of various attributes on respondents' preferences for distribution of health and health care. In addition to the renowned equity principles severity of illness (operationalized as initial health) and fair innings (operationalized as age), some characteristics of beneficiaries (culpability and having dependents) and the disease (rarity) were included in the choice experiment. We used a nested logit model to analyse the data. We found that all selected attributes significantly influenced respondents' choices. The phased inclusion showed that additional attributes affected respondents' preferences for previously-included attributes and reduced unobserved variance. Although not all these attributes may be considered relevant for decision making from a normative perspective, including them in choice experiments contributes to our understanding of societal preferences for each single attribute.

A discrete choice experiment to obtain a tariff for valuing informal care situations measured with the CarerQol instrument.

BACKGROUND / OBJECTIVE: Economic evaluations adopting a societal perspective need to include informal care whenever relevant. However, in practice, informal care is often neglected, because there are few validated instruments to measure and value informal care for inclusion in economic evaluations. The CarerQol, which is such an instrument, measures the impact of informal care on 7 important burden dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and values this in terms of general quality of life (CarerQol-VAS). The objective of the study was to calculate utility scores based on relative utility weights for the CarerQol-7D. These tariffs will facilitate inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations. METHODS: The CarerQol-7D tariff was derived with a discrete choice experiment conducted as an Internet survey among the general adult population in the Netherlands (N = 992). The choice set contained 2 unlabeled alternatives described in terms of the 7 CarerQol-7D dimensions (level range: "no,""some," and "a lot"). An efficient experimental design with priors obtained from a pilot study (N = 104) was used. Data were analyzed with a panel mixed multinomial parameter model including main and interaction effects of the attributes. RESULTS: The utility attached to informal care situations was significantly higher when this situation was more attractive in terms of fewer problems and more fulfillment or support. The interaction term between the CarerQol-7D dimensions physical health and mental health problems also significantly explained this utility. The tariff was constructed by adding up the relative utility weights per category of all CarerQol-7D dimensions and the interaction term. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained a tariff providing standard utility scores for caring situations described with the CarerQol-7D. This facilitates the inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations.

Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall.

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to inform decisions regarding the allocation of scarce health care resources. To systematically incorporate societal preferences into these evaluations, quality-adjusted life year gains could be weighted according to some equity principle, the most suitable of which is a matter of frequent debate. While many countries still struggle with equity concerns for priority setting in health care, the Netherlands has reached a broad consensus to use the concept of proportional shortfall. Our study evaluates the concept and its support in the Dutch health care context. We discuss arguments in the Netherlands for using proportional shortfall and difficulties in transitioning from principle to practice. In doing so, we address universal issues leading to a systematic consideration of equity concerns for priority setting in health care. The article thus has relevance to all countries struggling with the formalization of equity concerns for priority setting.