Ethical and Social Values for Paediatric Health Technology Assessment and Drug Policy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Division of Haematology/Oncology, Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

2 Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

4 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Abstract

Background
Public policy approaches to funding paediatric medicines in advanced health systems remain understudied. In particular, the ethical and social values dimensions of health technology assessment (HTA) and drug coverage decisions for children have received almost no attention in research or policy.
 
Methods
To elicit and understand the social values that influence decision-making for public funding of paediatric drugs, we undertook a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified purposive sample (n = 22) of stakeholders involved with or affected by drug funding decisions for children at the provincial (Ontario) and national levels in Canada. Constructivist grounded theory methodology guided data collection and thematic analysis.
 
Results
Our study provides empirical evidence about the unique ethical and social values dimensions of HTA for children, and describes a novel social values typology for paediatric drug policy decision-making. Three principal categories of values emerged from stakeholder reflections on HTA and drug policy-making for children: procedural values, structural values, and sociocultural values. Key findings include the importance of attention to the procedural legitimacy of HTA for children, with emphasis on the inclusion of child health voices in processes of technology appraisal and policy uptake; a role for HTA institutions to consider the equity impacts of technologies, both in setting review priorities and in assessing the value of technologies for public coverage; and the potential benefits of a distinct national framework to guide drug policy for children.
 
Conclusion
Current approaches to HTA are not well designed for the realities of child health and illness, nor the societal priorities regarding children that our study identified. This research generates new knowledge to inform decision-making on paediatric drugs by HTA institutions and government payers in Canada and other publicly-funded health systems, through insights into the relevant social values for child drug funding decisions from varied stakeholder groups.

Keywords


  1. European Parliament CotEU. Medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006. Vol L378: Official Journal of the European Union; 2006:1-19.
  2. Public Law. Best Medicines for Children Act (BPCA). 2002:107-109.
  3. Public Law. Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). 2003:108-155.
  4. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). What is health technology assessment (HTA)?  https://www.inahta.org/.    Accessed February 10, 2019.
  5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Programs and Services. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services.   Accessed February 22, 2019.
  6. Council of the Federation. The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance. https://www.canadaspremiers.ca/pan-canadian-pharmaceutical-alliance-archives/.  Accessed February 22, 2019. Published 2016.
  7. Costa V, Ungar WJ. Health technology assessment in child health. In: Ungar WJ, ed. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009.
  8. Denburg A, Ungar W, Greenberg M. Public drug policy for children in Canada. CMAJ. 2017;189:E990-E994. doi:10.1503/cmaj.170380
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Listening for Direction: A National Consultation on Health Services and Policy Issues. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/20461.html.  Accessed February 25, 2019. Published 2007.
  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Social Value Judgements: Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance. London: NICE; 2008.
  11. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
  12. Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109(1):121-136. 
  13. Verbeek P-P. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Human Values. 2006;31(3):361-380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847
  14. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25(6):1083-1120. doi:10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083
  15. Giacomini M, Winsor S, Abelson J. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthcare Management Forum. 2013;26:72-76.
  16. Bowen G. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):12-23. doi:10.1177/160940690600500304
  17. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):282-293. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x
  18. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31-42. doi:10.1017/s0266462310001315
  19. MacNaughton G, Hughes P, Smith K. Young children’s rights and public policy: practices and possibilities for citizenship in the early years. Child Soc. 2007;21(6):458-469. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2007.00096.x
  20. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx.  Accessed March 3, 2019. Published 1989.
  21. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ. 1997;6(2):117-132. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199703)6:23.0.co;2-b
  22. Giacomini M. The which-hunt: Assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law.1999;24(4):715-758.
  23. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(2):144-185. doi:10.1017/s0266462300010357
  24. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):310-315. doi:10.1017/s026646230707050x
  25. Johanson R, Rigby C, Newburn M, Stewart M, Jones P. Suggestions in maternal and child health for the National Technology Assessment Programme: a consideration of consumer and professional priorities. J R Soc Promot Health. 2002;122(1):50-54. doi:10.1177/146642400212200115
  26. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, Bouter L. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14(2):226-236. doi:10.1017/s0266462300012216
  27. Ungar WJ, Gerber A. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. In: Ungar WJ, ed. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2010:3-32.
  28. Panteli D, Kreis J, Busse R. Considering equity in health technology assessment: an exploratory analysis of agency practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(5):314-323. doi:10.1017/s0266462315000549
  29. Ueffing E, Tugwell P, Hatcher Roberts J, Walker P, Hamel N, Welch V. Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: application to scaling up of training and education for health workers. Hum Resour Health. 2009;7:67. doi:10.1186/1478-4491-7-67
  30. Culyer AJ, Bombard Y. An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(3):428-441. doi:10.1177/0272989x11426484
Volume 11, Issue 3
March 2022
Pages 374-382
  • Receive Date: 23 March 2020
  • Revise Date: 20 July 2020
  • Accept Date: 21 July 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2022