Priority setting beyond evidence based medicine and cost effectiveness analysis
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Priority Setting: Beyond Evidence-based Medicine and Cost-effectiveness Analysis PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 91 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Priority Setting: Beyond Evidence-based Medicine and Cost-effectiveness Analysis . Douglas K. Martin, PhD Director, Collaborative Program in Bioethics, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, and the Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto

Download Presentation

Priority Setting: Beyond Evidence-based Medicine and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Priority setting beyond evidence based medicine and cost effectiveness analysis

Priority Setting: Beyond Evidence-based Medicine and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Douglas K. Martin, PhD

Director, Collaborative Program in Bioethics,

Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation,

and the Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto

Career Scientist, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care


Outline

Outline

  • Where we have been – the 1980s & 1990s

  • Where we are going – 2000 to 2010

  • Improving priority setting


Where we have been

Where we have been

  • PS: Distribution of goods and services among competing needs

  • PS occurs at all levels of system

    • government, RHAs, disease management organizations, research agencies, PBM, hospitals, clinical programs

  • rationing resource allocation priority setting sustainability


Evidence based medicine cost effectiveness analysis

Evidence-based Medicine & Cost-effectiveness Analysis

  • Dominant tradition; HTA = TAH

  • Technical problems

    • Levels of evidence; types of benefits; availability

    • WB “The Economics of Priority Setting for Health Care” (2003): problems with economic evaluations; incorporating equity; practical constraints

  • PaussJensen, Singer, Detsky. Ontario’s Formulary Committee How Recommendations are Made. Pharmacoeconomics (2003).

    • “Complex economic analyses played a limited role.”

  • Helpful but limited; necessary but not sufficient


Let s be clear ps decisions are

Let’s be clear: PS decisions are . . .

VALUE-BASED

DECISIONS

NOT information-based decisions

Compassion for the Vulnerable

Rule-of-Rescue

Equity

Risk

Democratic deliberation

Evidence

Equality

Efficiency

Solidarity

Benefit

Individual Responsibility

Access

Need

AND THESE VALUES OFTEN CONFLICT


Gaps in knowledge

Gaps in knowledge

  • Goodbye to simple solutions (Holm, BMJ 2000)

  • Normative approaches (e.g. philosophy, health economics)

    • help identify values

    • but conflict, no consensus, too abstract

  • Empirical approaches

    • what is done \ what can be done

    • but not what should be done

  • International experience shows difficulty reaching agreement on what decision should be made (Ham, Coulter, JHSRP 2001)

  • Martin, Singer 2000


    Can agree on how fair process

    Can agree on how: Fair process

    But,

    what is fair?


    Accountability for reasonableness

    ‘Accountability for reasonableness’

    • Relevance: based on reasons upon which stakeholders can agree in the circumstances

    • Publicity: reasons publicly accessible

    • Revision/Appeals: mechanism for challenging/revising reasons

    • Enforcement: to ensure 3 conditions met

    Daniels & Sabin, 1997


    Where we are going

    Where we are going

    • “Simple solutions” on one hand and “muddling through” on the other, or substantive versus procedural criteria, represent dialectically opposite extremes. A synthesized conceptual model or framework, grounded in real experience and taking account of various discipline-specific perspectives, represents the next phase of priority setting.

    Martin, Singer, 2000


    Criteria process parameters of success

    Criteria & Process: Parameters of Success

    • Competing goals and multiple stakeholder relationships

    • Efficiency considerations or technical solutions limited influence, not sufficient

    • An evaluation of the normative 'rightness' [of ps criteria] depends on the specific institutional circumstances, the stakeholders who are affected, and the strategic goals that are being pursued.

    • Underscores the importance of procedural fairness to secure socially acceptable priority setting decisions and to ensure public accountability.

    Gibson, Martin, Singer. BMCHS, 2004


    Informal networks of deliberation

    Informal Networks of Deliberation

    • Beyond formal institutional structures

    • Emphasizes ‘public good’ over ‘private interests’

    • Context where claims must be justified; actions shaped by requirements of justification [Chaves, 1974]

    • Provides more information about others’ preferences

    • Engages inherent human ability to assess different reasons [Manin, 1987]

    • Renders decision legitimate in the eyes of participants;

    • Groups can pool their experience and creativity

    • Enhances ‘buy-in’


    Improving priority setting

    Improving Priority Setting

    • Describe

      • Case study methods

      • What groups actually do

    • Evaluate

      • ‘Accountability for reasonableness’

      • What groups should do

      • Correspondence: good practices

      • Gaps: opportunities for improvement

    • Improve

      • Implement strategies to close gaps

    Martin, Singer, Health Care Analysis 2003


    Benefits of describe evaluate improve

    Benefits of describe/evaluate/improve

    • Institution:

      • quality improvement

      • political involvement

      • learning organization

      • leadership

    • Other health care organizations:

      • share good practices


    Example 1 ps and hospital strategic planning

    Example #1: PS and Hospital Strategic Planning

    • Relevance

      • ensure info captures impact on academic programs and hospital’s community

      • optimize inclusivity / exclusivity

      • revise agreement mechanism

  • Publicity

    • comprehensive communication plan

    • clarify op and strategic plan

  • Appeals

    • develop appeals grounds / process

  • Enforcement

    • start data consultation & data collection earlier

    • describe, evaluate, and improve again!

  • Martin, Shulman, Santiago-Sorrel, Singer, JHSRP 2003


    Other examples

    Other examples

    • Health System

      • Martin, Singer “Canada” in Ham & Roberts (eds) Reasonable Rationing. 2003

    • Provincial Drug Formulary

      • PaussJensen, Detsky, Singer Pharmacoeconomics 2002

    • Hospital Drug Formulary

      • Martin, Hollenberg, MacRae, Madden, Singer Health Policy 2003

    • Cancer Drugs

      • Martin, Pater, Singer Lancet 2001

    • ICU

      • Mielke, Martin, Singer Critical Care Medicine 2003

      • Martin, Bernstein, Singer J Neur, Neurosurg, Psych 2003


    Database of learning

    Database of Learning


    Social policy learning

    Priority

    Setting

    Social Policy Learning

    • Make ‘private’ decisions public

    • Educative function

    • Body of ‘case law’; institutional reflective equilibrium

    • Iterative - improves over time


    Beyond and forward

    Beyond and Forward

    • Synthesis: Criteria & Process

      • Value-based decisions about which there is much conflict

      • EBM & CEA necessary but insufficient

      • Fair process enhances legitimacy & accountability

    • Informal networks of deliberation

      • creates climate of ‘public good’, assessment of reasons; enhanced problem-solving; increased ‘buy-in’

    • Describe-evaluate-improve approach

    • Ongoing process of social policy learning


    Acknowledgements

    Acknowledgements

    • The JCB PS Research Team:

      • Mark Bernstein, Scott Berry, Jennifer Gibson, Heather Gordon, Lydia Kapiriri, Shannon Madden, David Reeleder, Zahava Rosenberg-Yunger, Peter A. Singer, Ross Upshur, Nancy Walton

    • Norman Daniels has contributed enormously to our understanding

    • www.canadianprioritysetting.ca

    Funded by grants from CIHR


  • Login