Date post: | 14-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | andres-reay |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 1 times |
How do we achieve cost effective cancer treatments in the UK?
Professor Peter LittlejohnsDepartment of Public Health and
Primary Care
Summary of talk – 3 key themes
• The question is not should you prioritise health care ...... but how to.
• Rarely is there a “right “ answer..... so how you get to the answer is important
• The role of the patient and the public is crucial to the whole process
The Nature of Evidence
Judgements have to be made
The role of social values
Evidence based guidance can be viewed as a practical manifestation of social contracts in deliberative democracies to ensure the most efficient and ethical allocation of finite healthcare resources to its constituentsTo achieve its goal, social values as well as technical issues need to be considered and should reflect the social/political milieu in which the organisation exists
NICE’s Response
Involving the public through the Citizen Council
http://www.radcliffe-oxford.com/
Future Research Agenda in Social Values and Patient and Public
Involvement
First International WorkshopFebruary 2011
Convened by Peter Littlejohns (KCL) Albert Weale, (UCL)
Supported by Wellcome and Nuffield TrustsParticipants from:
Johns Hopkins University – USA HAS – FranceHITAP – ThailandIQWIG – GermanyNECA – KoreaRenmin University – ChinaWHO
Conclusions of workshop
• Lots of people telling you what you should do to achieve fair prioritisation of health care but very few tell you how to .
• Need for a new “practical” international research and policy network
• Goal is to develop a prioritisation tool kit for policy makers and patients and the public in support of prioritising health services fairly
Social Values Framework
The processes of decision making Institutional setting Rules of decision making Accountability for decisions
Participation in decision making
The content of decision making Cost and clinical effectiveness Social value judgements Cost-sharing
Process values: Transparency
How might we define transparency?
Everyone knows who makes decisions
Everyone knows who makes decisions and by what processes
Everyone knows who makes decisions, by what processes and for what reasons
Basic transparency of
institutional arrangements
Transparency of institutional
decision making processes
Full transparency of institution, processes
and criteria
Process Values: Accountability To whom is accountability owed?.....
And accountability for what?
Priority Setters
Clinical effectivenessValue judgements
Patients
Clinical effectivenessValue judgements
Health professionals
Financial ExpenditureCost effectiveness
TaxpayersInsurance payers
Meeting basicentitlements
The Courts
Process Values: ParticipationWho might participate? Patients, health professionals, experts, taxpayers, insurance payers, citizens….
Why value participation?
If people have their say, then they can’t complain at the result
Decisions are more legitimate if different interests can contribute
It improves the quality of decisions Those whose money is being spent
should have a say in what it’s used for
The more of these reasons apply, the
more we move from consultation to
control.
Content Values: Clinical Effectiveness
How to define clinical effectiveness?
Any intervention showing some evidence of benefit
Only interventions that definitely provide benefits
Only interventions that definitely provide benefit to patients, and are better than available alternatives
Uncertain, lack of
evidence, but available – solidarity?
Certainty, good evidence but patients may
wait
Patients take a risk –
autonomy?
Minimal risk to patients – paternalist?
Content Values: Cost-EffectivenessHow important is cost-effectiveness, relative to other values?
It’s just one factor amongst many and should not have privileged status
It’s one of the most important factors but not always decisive – however it might be unusual for other values to over-rule it
It’s of primary and decisive importance
Strong focus on individual-related values,
eg. dignity
Less focus on individual-related values, more on collective ones, eg. opportunity
costs
Who benefits can be
important
Doesn’t matter who benefits –
QALY is a QALY is a
QALY
Content Values: Justice/EquityWhat might justice/equity require in priority setting?
All patients with the same condition should be treated the same
Some patients should be ‘positively’ prioritised because of their status – eg. vulnerable populations, the young, the poor, people with dependents
Some patients should be ‘negatively’ prioritised because they are responsible for their condition
Health is the only relevant
factor
Factors other than health should be
taken into consideration
Factors other than health should be
taken into consideration
Treats all individual patients the same; expresses health solidarity;
May consider people other than patient; may express socio-economic solidarity;
Focus on individual; autonomy important; may factor in capacity to benefit.
Content Values: SolidarityWhat might solidarity
require?
All have access to ‘comprehensive care’, however defined
All have access to a ‘basic package’, however defined
Entirely private arrangements
Full social solidarity
Partial solidarity
Weak solidarity
Content Values: Autonomy
How important is autonomy? Autonomy as personal preference and personal
responsibility
We should give low priority to individual preferences, and individual responsibility should not condition access to treatment.
People should be able to exercise some preferences over some care
People are responsible for spending their own money and for their own lifestyle choices
Individualistic focus for priorities
Priorities set
collectively
Launch of new programme
Future ResearchEnglish Project
As part of a new international research programme exploring the role of social values in health policy decisions we propose to test an emerging social values framework with the clinical commissioning groups. The aim is to develop and evaluate a social values, patient and public involvement tool kit to support CCGs in their responsibility to prioritise and comssion health care.
The project will consist of 3 phases:
(i)The draft social values framework will be introduced into a few localities in order to test its face validity, applicability and to explore potential methods and metrics to assess its impact.
(ii)Develop a social values, patient and public involvement tool kit (SVPPIT)
(iii)Test SVPPIT in a national study and evaluate its impact.
Thank you for your attention