IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study

Author

Listed:
  • Yasmeen Razvi
  • Simonne L Horwitz
  • Celine Cressman
  • Daniel E Wang
  • Randi Zlotnik Shaul
  • Avram Denburg

Abstract

Objectives: Rising costs of innovative drugs and therapeutics (D&Ts) have led to resource allocation challenges for healthcare institutions. There is limited evidence to guide priority-setting for institutional funding of high-cost D&Ts. This study sought to identify and elaborate on the substantive principles and procedures that should inform institutional funding decisions for high-cost off-formulary D&Ts through a case study of a quaternary care paediatric hospital. Methods: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews, both virtual and in-person, were conducted with institutional stakeholders (i.e. staff clinicians, senior leadership, and pharmacists) (n = 23) and two focus groups at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. Participants involved in, and impacted by, high-cost off-formulary drug funding decisions were recruited through stratified, purposive sampling. Participants were approached for study involvement between July 27, 2020 and June 7, 2022. Data was analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Institutional resource allocation for high-cost D&Ts was identified as ethically challenging but critical to sustainable access to novel therapies. Important substantive principles included: 1) clinical evidence of safety and efficacy, 2) economic considerations (direct costs, opportunity costs, value for money), 3) ethical principles (social justice, professional/organizational responsibility), and 4) disease-specific considerations. Multidisciplinary deliberation was identified as an essential procedural component of decision-making. Participants identified tension between innovation and the need for evidence-based decision-making; clinician and institutional responsibilities; and value for money and social justice. Participants emphasized the role of health system-level funding allocation in alleviating the financial and moral burden of decision-making by institutions. Conclusions: This study identifies values and processes to aid in the development and implementation of institutional resource allocation frameworks for high-cost innovative D&Ts.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasmeen Razvi & Simonne L Horwitz & Celine Cressman & Daniel E Wang & Randi Zlotnik Shaul & Avram Denburg, 2024. "Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300519
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300519
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300519&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300519?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibson, Jennifer L. & Martin, Douglas K. & Singer, Peter A., 2005. "Priority setting in hospitals: Fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2355-2362, December.
    2. Drew Carter & Arlene Vogan & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, 2016. "Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 401-407, August.
    3. Aidem, Jeremy M., 2017. "Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(6), pages 683-690.
    4. Anderson, Pippa & Webb, Philip & Groves, Sam, 2017. "Prioritisation of specialist health care services; not NICE, not easy but it can be done," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 978-985.
    5. Angelis, Aris & Kanavos, Panos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: The Advance Value Framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 137-156.
    6. Daniels, Norman & Sabin, James E., 2002. "Setting Limits Fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195149364, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melberg, Andrea, 2024. "Open and opaque? The performativity of open priorities in a Norwegian hospital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    2. Dale, Elina & Peacocke, Elizabeth F. & Movik, Espen & Voorhoeve, Alex & Ottersen, Trygve & Kurowski, Christoph & Evans, David B. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Gopinathan, Unni, 2023. "Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119799, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Kapiriri, Lydia & Norheim, Ole F. & Martin, Douglas K., 2009. "Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 766-773, February.
    4. Maluka, Stephen & Kamuzora, Peter & Sebastiån, Miguel San & Byskov, Jens & Olsen, Øystein E. & Shayo, Elizabeth & Ndawi, Benedict & Hurtig, Anna-Karin, 2010. "Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: Evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 751-759, August.
    5. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    6. Schoemaker, Casper G. & van Loon, Jeanne & Achterberg, Peter W. & van den Berg, Matthijs & Harbers, Maartje M. & den Hertog, Frank R.J. & Hilderink, Henk & Kommer, Geertjan & Melse, Johan & van Oers, , 2019. "The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 252-259.
    7. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2006. "Responsibility, fairness and rationing in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 312-319, May.
    8. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    9. Askildsen, Jan Erik & Holmås, Tor Helge & Kaarboe, Oddvar, 2010. "Prioritization and patients' rights: Analysing the effect of a reform in the Norwegian hospital sector," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 199-208, January.
    10. Sofaer, Neema & Kapiriri, Lydia & Atuyambe, Lynn M. & Otolok-Tanga, Erasmus & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair?: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 33-42, June.
    11. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    12. Breton, Mylaine & Smithman, Mélanie Ann & Sasseville, Martin & Kreindler, Sara A. & Sutherland, Jason M. & Beauséjour, Marie & Green, Michael & Marshall, Emily Gard & Jbilou, Jalila & Shaw, Jay & Brou, 2020. "How the design and implementation of centralized waiting lists influence their use and effect on access to healthcare - A realist review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(8), pages 787-795.
    13. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    14. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    15. Jenny von Platten & Karl de Fine Licht & Mikael Mangold & Kristina Mjörnell, 2021. "Renovating on Unequal Premises: A Normative Framework for a Just Renovation Wave in Swedish Multifamily Housing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, September.
    16. Chris Sampson & Bernarda Zamora & Sam Watson & John Cairns & Kalipso Chalkidou & Patricia Cubi-Molla & Nancy Devlin & Borja García-Lorenzo & Dyfrig A. Hughes & Ashley A. Leech & Adrian Towse, 2022. "Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 651-667, September.
    17. Pratt, Bridget & Merritt, Maria & Hyder, Adnan A., 2016. "Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 215-224.
    18. Katharina Böhm & Claudia Landwehr & Nils Steiner, 2017. "What Explains Generosity in the Public Financing of High-Tech Drugs? An Empirical Investigation for 25 OECD Countries and 11 Controversial Drugs," Working Papers 1708, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    19. Aris Angelis & Mark Thursz & Vlad Ratziu & Alastair O’Brien & Lawrence Serfaty & Ali Canbay & Ingolf Schiefke & Joao Bana e Costa & Pascal Lecomte & Panos Kanavos, 2020. "Early Health Technology Assessment during Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Drug Development: A Two-Round, Cross-Country, Multicriteria Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 830-845, August.
    20. Jennifer Whitty & Paul Scuffham & Sharyn Rundle-Thielee, 2011. "Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 73-79, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.