Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy

被引:19
作者
Bentley, Colene [1 ]
Peacock, Stuart [1 ]
Abelson, Julia [2 ]
Burgess, Michael M. [3 ]
Demers-Payette, Olivier [4 ]
Longstaff, Holly [5 ]
Tripp, Laura [2 ]
Lavis, John N. [6 ]
Wilson, Michael G. [6 ]
机构
[1] Canadian Ctr Appl Res Canc Control ARCC, 675 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1L3, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, 1280 Main St West,CRL 203, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
[3] Univ British Columbia, Sch Populat & Publ Hlth, 239 RHS,1088 Discovery Ave, Kelowna, BC V1V IV7, Canada
[4] INESSS, 2021 Ave Union,12th Floor,Bur 1200, Montreal, PQ H3A 2S9, Canada
[5] Engage Associates Consulting Firm, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[6] McMaster Hlth Forum, 1280 Main St West,MML 417, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L6, Canada
关键词
Public engagement; priority-setting; cancer; Canada; TRENDS;
D O I
10.1186/s12961-019-0411-8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundHealth system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system.MethodsAn approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement.Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically.ResultsA total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations.Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live.ConclusionsThe next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 26 条
[11]   Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach [J].
Bombard, Yvonne ;
Abelson, Julia ;
Simeonov, Donna ;
Gauvin, Francois-Pierre .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2011, 73 (01) :135-144
[12]   From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy [J].
Burgess, Michael M. .
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2014, 23 (01) :48-52
[13]   A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials [J].
Cressman, Sonya ;
Browman, George P. ;
Hoch, Jeffrey S. ;
Kovacic, Laurel ;
Peacock, Stuart J. .
ONCOLOGIST, 2015, 20 (07) :729-736
[14]   Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, J .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 1997, 26 (04) :303-350
[15]  
de Oliveira Claire, 2013, CMAJ Open, V1, pE151, DOI 10.9778/cmajo.20130041
[16]  
Ellison LF, 2012, HEALTH REP, V23, P7
[17]   Deliberating about bioethics [J].
Gutmann, A ;
Thompson, D .
HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 1997, 27 (03) :38-41
[18]   Informing Canada's cancer drug funding decisions with scientific evidence and patient perspectives: the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [J].
Hoch, J. S. ;
Sabharwal, M. .
CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2013, 20 (02) :121-124
[19]   Pricing in the Market for Anticancer Drugs [J].
Howard, David H. ;
Bach, Peter B. ;
Berndt, Ernst R. ;
Conti, Rena M. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2015, 29 (01) :139-162
[20]   Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review [J].
Mitton, Craig ;
Smith, Neale ;
Peacock, Stuart ;
Evoy, Brian ;
Abelson, Julia .
HEALTH POLICY, 2009, 91 (03) :219-228