From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking

Objectives Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. Method An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. Results Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16). Conclusion This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-settin

Implementation and Outcomes of Commercial Disease Management Programs in the United States: The Disease Management Outcomes Consolidation Survey

Despite widespread adoption of disease management (DM) programs by US health plans, gaps remain in the evidence for their benefit. The Disease Management Outcomes Consolidation Survey was designed to gather data on DM programs for commercial health plans, to assess program success and DM effectiveness. The questionnaire was mailed to 292 appropriate health plan contacts; 26 plans covering more than 14 million commercial members completed and returned the survey. Respondents reported that DM plays a significant and increasing role in their organizations. Key reasons for adopting DM were improving clinical outcomes, reducing medical costs and utilization, and improving member satisfaction. More respondents were highly satisfied with clinical results than with utilization or cost outcomes of their programs (46%, 17%, and 13%, respectively). Detailed results were analyzed for 57 DM programs with over 230,000 enrollees. Most responding plans offered DM programs for diabetes and asthma, with return on investment (ROI) ranging from 0.16:1 to 4:1. Weighted by number of enrollees per DM program, average ROI was 2.56:1 for asthma (n = 1,136 enrollees) and 1.98:1 for diabetes (n = 25,364). Most (but not all) respondents reported reduced hospital admissions, increasing rates of preventive care, and improved clinical measures. Few respondents provided detailed information about DM programs for other medical conditions, but most that did reported positive outcomes. Lack of standardized methodology was identified as a major barrier to in-house program evaluation. Although low response rate precluded drawing many general conclusions, a clear need emerged for more rigorous evaluation methods and greater standardization of outcomes measurement. (Disease Management 2005;8:253–264)Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63399/1/dis.2005.8.253.pd

Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Consistent healthcare decisionmaking requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.</p