What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions

Irina Cleemput (Corresponding Author), Stephan Devriese, Laurence Kohn, Carl Devos, Janine van Til, Catharina G.M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Carine van de Voorde

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

35 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value.

Methods: A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method.

Results: Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21).

Limitations: Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small.

Conclusion: Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-16
Number of pages16
JournalMedical decision making
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Administrative Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Weights and Measures
Public Policy
Decision Support Techniques
Quality of Life
Life Expectancy
Illegitimacy
Therapeutics
Health Expenditures
Sample Size
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Reimbursement
  • Health insurance
  • Decision making
  • Consumer participation

Cite this

Cleemput, Irina ; Devriese, Stephan ; Kohn, Laurence ; Devos, Carl ; van Til, Janine ; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M. ; van de Voorde, Carine. / What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions. In: Medical decision making. 2018 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 1-16.
@article{d5d7ede7c30f4cf78f8e4be6a85a3ed3,
title = "What Does the Public Want?: Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions",
abstract = "Background: Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value.Methods: A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method.Results: Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21).Limitations: Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small.Conclusion: Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, Reimbursement, Health insurance, Decision making, Consumer participation",
author = "Irina Cleemput and Stephan Devriese and Laurence Kohn and Carl Devos and {van Til}, Janine and Groothuis-Oudshoorn, {Catharina G.M.} and {van de Voorde}, Carine",
note = "Sage deal",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1177/2381468318799628",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "1--16",
journal = "Medical decision making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "2",

}

What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions. / Cleemput, Irina (Corresponding Author); Devriese, Stephan; Kohn, Laurence; Devos, Carl; van Til, Janine; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M.; van de Voorde, Carine.

In: Medical decision making, Vol. 3, No. 2, 25.09.2018, p. 1-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What Does the Public Want?

T2 - Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions

AU - Cleemput, Irina

AU - Devriese, Stephan

AU - Kohn, Laurence

AU - Devos, Carl

AU - van Til, Janine

AU - Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G.M.

AU - van de Voorde, Carine

N1 - Sage deal

PY - 2018/9/25

Y1 - 2018/9/25

N2 - Background: Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value.Methods: A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method.Results: Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21).Limitations: Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small.Conclusion: Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.

AB - Background: Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments’ added value.Methods: A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method.Results: Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to “impact of a disease on public expenditures” (0.65) than to “prevalence of the disease” (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers’ weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to “impact on quality of life” and “impact on prevalence” (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged “impact on quality of life” (0.39) more important than “impact on prevalence” (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21).Limitations: Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers’ sample size was small.Conclusion: Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - Reimbursement

KW - Health insurance

KW - Decision making

KW - Consumer participation

UR - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2381468318799628

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/public-want-structural-consideration-citizen-preferences-health-care-coverage-decisions

U2 - 10.1177/2381468318799628

DO - 10.1177/2381468318799628

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Medical decision making

JF - Medical decision making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 2

ER -