The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison

Skedgel, Christopher (2016) The prioritization preferences of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review members and the Canadian public: a stated-preferences comparison. Current Oncology, 23 (5). pp. 322-328. ISSN 1198-0052

[img] Microsoft Word (pCODR manuscript NO TABLES) - Submitted Version
Download (68kB)
[img] Microsoft Word (pCODR manuscript TABLES ONLY) - Submitted Version
Download (173kB)
[img]
Preview
PDF (Skedgel, 2016 Curr Onc) - Published Version
Download (405kB) | Preview

Abstract

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) is responsible for making coverage recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans about cancer drugs. Within the pcodr process, small groups of experts (including public representatives) consider the characteristics of each drug and make a funding recommendation. It is important to understand how the values and preferences of those decision-makers compare with the values and preferences of the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. In the present study, stated preference methods were used to elicit prioritization preferences from a representative sample of the Canadian public and a small convenience sample of pcodr committee members. The results suggested that neither group sought strictly to maximize quality-adjusted life year (qaly) gains and that they were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to prioritize particular patient characteristics. Both groups had a significant aversion to prioritizing older patients, patients in good pre-treatment health, and patients in poor post-treatment health. Those results are reassuring, in that they suggest that pcodr decision-maker preferences are consistent with those of the Canadian public, but they also imply that, like the larger public, decision-makers might value health gains to some patients more or less highly than the same gains to others. The implicit nature of pcodr decision criteria means that the acceptability or limits of such differential valuations are unclear. Likewise, there is no guidance as to which potential equity factors—for example, age, initial severity, and so on—are legitimate and which are not. More explicit guidance could improve the consistency and transparency of pcodr recommendations.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: priority-setting,stated preferences,pcodr
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 13 May 2016 15:00
Last Modified: 27 Jul 2020 23:50
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/58735
DOI: 10.3747/co.23.3033

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item