Search

Background: Transparency in health care resource allocation decisions is a criterion of a fair process. We used qualitative methods to explore transparency across 11 Canadian drug advisory committees., Methods: We developed seven criteria to assess transparency (disclosure of members' names, disclosure of membership selection criteria, disclosure of conflict of interest guidelines and members' conflicts, public posting of decisions not to fund drugs, public posting of rationales for decisions, stakeholder input, and presence of an appeals mechanism) and two sub-criteria for when rationales were posted (direct website link and readability). We interviewed a purposeful sample of key informants who were conversant in English and a current or past member of either a committee or a stakeholder group. We analyzed data using a thematic approach. Interviewing continued until saturation was reached., Results: We examined documents from 10 committees and conducted 27 interviews. The median number of criteria addressed by committees was 2 (range 0-6). Major interview themes included addressing: (1) accessibility issues, including stakeholders' degree of access to the decision making process and appeal mechanisms; (2) communication issues, including improving internal and external communication and public access to information; and (3) confidentiality issues, including the use of proprietary evidence., Conclusion: Most committees have some mechanisms to address transparency but none had a fully transparent process. The most important ways to improve transparency include creating formal appeal mechanisms, improving communication, and establishing consistent rules about the use of, and public access to, proprietary evidence., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe stakeholder involvement in the priority setting and appeals processes across five drug reimbursement recommendation committees., Methods: We conducted qualitative case studies of how five independent drug advisory committees from Canada, Israel, England and Wales, Australia, and the USA made funding decisions for six expensive drugs. Interviews with 48 informants were conducted with committee members, patient groups, and industry representatives., Results: Different stakeholders were allowed, in varying degrees, to participate in the formal mechanisms for revisions and appeals of decisions. Participants identified a number of stakeholder groups who were already involved in the process, as well as stakeholders whom they believed should be included in the decision-making process., Conclusions: A central component of a legitimate and fair priority setting process is to make priority setting explicit and to involve both pertinent values and stakeholders in decision-making. Study participants believed that the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups within the deliberative and appeals/revisions processes would contribute to a fair and legitimate drug reimbursement process., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the process of priority setting for two orphan drugs - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - in Canada, Australia and Israel, in order to understand and improve the process based on stakeholder perspectives., Methods: We conducted qualitative case studies of how three independent drug advisory committees made decisions relating to the funding of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Interviews were conducted with 22 informants, including committee members, patient groups and industry representatives., Results: (1) DESCRIPTION: Orphan drugs reimbursement recommendations by expert panels were based on clinical evidence, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. (2) EVALUATION: Committee members expressed an overall preference for the current drug review process used by their own committee, but were concerned with the fairness of the process particularly for orphan drugs. Other informants suggested the inclusion of other relevant values (e.g. lack of alternative treatments) in order to improve the priority setting process. Some patient groups suggested the use of an alternative funding mechanism for orphan drugs., Conclusions: Priority setting for drugs is not solely a technical process (involving cost-effective analysis, evidence-based medicine, etc.). Understanding the process by which reimbursement decisions are made for orphan drugs may help improve the system for future orphan drugs., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Governments around the world have focused on issues of sustainability, innovations and priority setting within their health systems. Tension exists between governments' desire to increase biotechnology innovation and the need to address health system sustainability. This commentary will: (1) review government initiatives in biotechnology in health innovation; (2) discuss how innovation, specifically biopharmaceuticals, challenges health system sustainability; and (3) explore how the tension between innovation and sustainability can be addressed using fairness and legitimacy. It is evident that a uni-jurisdictional approach may not be optimal in promoting innovation while ensuring a sustainable health system. Harmonization of biotechnology policies across the federal, provincial, and territorial governments will ensure consistent policies across all branches in order to circumvent the possibility of one governmental branch refusing to reimburse the very innovations other branches are promoting.