Papers

Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study

Peter A Singer, Sun Life chair and director ^a, Douglas K Martin, research associate ^a, Mita Giacomini, assistant professor ^b, Laura Purdy, bioethicist ^a. 

^a University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1L4, ^b Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5

Correspondence to: P A Singer peter.singer{at}utoronto.ca

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Objective: To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine.
Design: Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory.
Setting: Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada.
Participants: The two committees and their 26 members.
Main outcome measures: Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings.
Results: Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions.
Conclusion: These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Because demand for health care exceeds the supply of resources allocated to finance it, setting priorities is a problem for every healthcare system in the world. But how should we set priorities within health systems?

Two key issues lie at the heart of setting prioritieslegitimacy (under what conditions should authority over priority setting be placed in the hands of a particular organisation, group, or person?) and fairness (when does a patient or clinician have sufficient reason to accept as fair particular priority setting decisions?).¹

At present, decision makers and the public have difficulty determining whether particular priority setting decisions are legitimate and fair. A first step in deciding what should be done to make such decisions legitimate and fair, is to understand how groups make these decisions. ^{2 3}

Since innovation is the primary driver of escalating healthcare costs,⁴ priority issues are particularly acute for new technologies. We conducted a study to develop a model describing priority setting in a specific contextnew technologies in cancer and cardiac care.

	Participants and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

We used qualitative methods of case studies and grounded theory ^{5 6} to study two cases: the Cancer Care Ontario policy advisory committee and the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario expert panel on intracoronary stents and abciximab (a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor). The Cancer Care Ontario policy advisory committee "manage[s] the selection and introduction of all new drugs within the funds provided" (letter from A Garland, acting regional director, Ontario Ministry of Health, to president of Cancer Care Ontario, 30 July 1997). The Cardiac Care Network of Ontario expert panel on intracoronary stents and abciximab was mandated to "review current literature and practice . . . and recommend, where possible, a cost-effective, multi-year plan for stent volumes and use of Abciximab that supports the principles of quality of care, access and affordability."⁷

Sampling and sample size
We interviewed 21 of the 26 committee members (11 of 15 from Cancer Care Ontario and 10 of 11 from the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario). The cancer committee included three lay members (one of whom was a patient), a government representative, a pharmacist, a nurse, two administrators, and seven oncologists. The cardiac committee included one lay member (a patient), a government representative, an administrator, a health economist, and seven cardiologists or cardiac surgeons. All meetings of both committees were observed for at least 12 months from the formation of each committee in 1997 to December 1998. At this point, the analysis was saturatedthat is, no new major domains emerged.

Data collection
We reviewed information about the two organisations, the written mandate of both committees, committee minutes, correspondence to committee members, and committee reports. Semistructured interviews were conducted by a single interviewer (DKM), either in person or over the telephone, and tape recorded and transcribed. The interviewer asked respondents to describe their role on the committee and evaluate their effectiveness; describe the committee process; indicate whether the process was fair; and indicate whether the decisions were fair. We also observed, tape recorded, and transcribed the meetings of both committees.

Analysis of data
We analysed the data in three steps. Firstly, using open coding, we identified passages of text that related to a theme or idea and then grouped similar concepts into conceptual categories (such as benefit). Secondly, using axial coding, we further developed the conceptual categories and compared them with each other (the six domains of the model). Thirdly, using selective coding, we developed a model by relating the domains to a central theme and to each other (the metaphor of a gem). The analysis was conducted simultaneously with data collection.

Research ethics
This study was approved by the committee on use of human subjects of the University of Toronto. Each committee member interviewed provided consent.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

We identified six interrelated domains of priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decisions are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions.

Institutions
Priority setting in both committees was established within a legitimate organisational context. Both organisations were created by the Ministry of Health to advise the ministry. Although the mandate of both committees included priority setting, they struggled with this. The cardiac committee debated about the distinction between making recommendations for clinical practice and for funding priorities. The cancer committee decided to advocate increased funding if it found itself denying an effective treatment to patients because of funding limits.

People
A key element of fairness described by committee members was that multiple stakeholder perspectives were represented. A difference emerged between the two committees with respect to the participation of lay committee members. The three lay members of the cancer committee were more satisfied with their participation than was the lone lay member of the cardiac committee. One of the cancer committee's lay members said:

I think on access issues I've been effective . . . I'd say that my frustrations have been fewer than I thought they would be at the start . . . it could be that just having community reps with this perspective sitting on that committee makes them have that awareness . . . So, I won't say I've been personally totally successful, but I think the process has been more successful than not in fulfilling what I think is my role.

I'm a businessperson, and to walk into a medical panel where they're talking a great deal of medical topics that I knew very little about, it's very hard for me to have the confidence to question what they were doing. You try to some extent but, if there was a matter of conflict it would be very easy for me to defer to their expertise . . . I think if there were two of us that might have helped . . . So one doesn't feel quite so overwhelmed by the rest of the panel.

Factors
The individual factors that shaped the decisions of both committees were benefit, evidence, harm, cost, cost effectiveness, and pattern of death. Benefit had the greatest role in the deliberations.

Without having hard numbers on the cost effectiveness, we did use the concept, at least, of cost effectiveness . . . in deciding, for example, not to recommend funding for the use of stenting in areas where we thought cost effectiveness would be unattractive.

Reasons
The reasons underlying both committees' decisions did not rest on individual factors such as those described above. Rather, both committees made decisions based on clusters of factors. Moreover, actual decision making was more complex than simply one drug and its attendant cluster of factors. Some decisions involved clusters of drugs, each with their own cluster of factors, for a single disease. Other decisions involved clusters of factors, clusters of drugs, and clusters of diseases. The box gives two examples from the cancer committee's deliberations. The first example shows how clusters of factors were used to develop a reason. The second example shows how clusters of factors, clusters of drugs, and clusters of diseases converge when reasoning through more complex decision making. This reasoning process enabled the committee members to periodically review previous decisions to evaluate the consistency of their reasoning.

Process
A key element of the process was transparency of decisions within the committee, although the reasoning was not widely publicised outside the committee. Participants identified other aspects of committee process that contributed to fairness: acknowledging conflicts of interest, providing the opportunity for everyone to express views, ensuring that all committee members understand the deliberations, maintaining honesty, building consensus, ensuring availability of external expert consultation, ensuring appropriate agenda setting, maintaining effective chairing, and ensuring timeliness in making funding decisions to get effective new technologies to patients.

Appeals
Participants emphasised that an appeals mechanism was a key element of fairness. In response to challenges of some decisions, the cancer committee decided it should revisit decisions if new evidence or new arguments became available.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

Although our findings may not be generalisable, we developed a model of priority setting in new technologies in medicine. Our model can be likened to a gemstone. Six domainsinstitutions, people, process, factors, reasons, and appealsform the facets. Each facet may be more or less perfect (legitimate or fair) and contributes to the perfection (legitimacy or fairness) of the whole.

However, just because a group makes priority setting decisions in a particular way does not make it "right." Our goal was to describe how these groups made priority setting decisions, not to prescribe how they should make them. We did not seek to justify what makes a particular domain more or less fair.

The closest analogues to our study are the work of Foy et al⁸ and Hope et al.⁹ Foy et al found that priority setting decisions regarding new cancer drugs were based on "evidence thresholds"cut-off points determined from information on effectiveness. Hope et al described the use of evidence of effectiveness, equity, and patient choice in a health authority's priority setting decisions. Our study describes these factors in priority setting decisions, but also places the factors in a model that includes institutions, people, process, reasons, and appeals. Our model developed in the context of new technologies for cancer and cardiac care in one province of Canada may not be applicable to other contexts such as priority setting by regional health authorities or hospitals.¹⁰

Although the elements of our model have been discussed by others,^11-17 the novelty lies in integrating these elements on the basis of evidence from case studies and the perspectives of decision makers. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how groups make priority setting decisions with ethical accounts of how they should make such decisions.¹

	Acknowledgments

Preliminary results were presented at the Second International Conference on Priorities in Health Care, British Medical Association, London, 8-10 October 1998.

We thank Cancer Care Ontario, the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario, and the members of their committees for agreeing to participate in this research. We also thank Professor Bernard Dickens for providing a legal perspective on the issues in this paper. Soren Holm, Steven Lewis, Martin McKneally, and Gilbert Sharpe provided helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Competing interests: None declared.

	Footnotes

Funding: PAS is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research investigator award, and MG is supported by a national health research scholar award from Health Canada. This research project was funded by grants from the Medical Research Council of Canada (#MA-14675) and the Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation of Ontario (#98-08).

This article is part of the BMJ's randomised controlled trial of open peer review. Documentation relating to the editorial decision making process is available on the BMJ's website

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Participants and methods Results Discussion References

1.	Daniels N, Sabin JE. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997; 26: 303-350.
2.	Singer PA. Resource allocation: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. ACP Journal Club 1997; 127: A16-A18[Medline].
3.	Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority setting and health technology assessment: beyond evidence based medicine and cost effectiveness analysis. In: Ham C, Coulter A, eds. Priorities in health care. Buckingham: Open University Press (in press).
4.	Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? Journal of Economic Perspectives 1992; 6(3): 3-21[Medline].
5.	Yin RK. Case Study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994:13.
6.	Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
7.	Cardiac Care Network of Ontario Expert Review Panel on Intracoronary Stents and Abciximab. Final report and recommendations. Ontario: CCNO, 1998.
8.	Foy R, So J, Rous E, Scarffe JH. Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold. BMJ 1999; 318: 456-459[Free Full Text].
9.	Hope T, Hicks N, Reynolds DJM, Crisp R, Griffiths S. Rationing and the health authority. BMJ 1998; 317: 1067-1069[Free Full Text].
10.	Green J. Commentary on: Gardner K, Chapple A. Barriers to referral in patients with angina: qualitative study. BMJ 1999; 319: 418-421[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11.	Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. Managing scarcity: priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996.
12.	Klein R. Puzzling out priorities: why we must acknowledge that rationing is a political process. BMJ 1998; 317: 959[Free Full Text].
13.	Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997; 42: 49-66[CrossRef][Medline].
14.	Ham C. Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the child B case. BMJ 1999; 319: 1258-1261[Free Full Text].
15.	Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ 1998; 317: 1000-1002[Free Full Text].
16.	Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 1998; 17: 50-64[Abstract].
17.	Daniels N, Sabin JE. Last chance therapies and managed care: pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy. Hastings Center Report 1998; 28(2): 27-41[Medline].

(Accepted 3 October 2000)