Next Article in Journal
Patterns of Practice with Third-Line Anti-EGFR Antibody for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Reoperation Costs in Attempted Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Decision Analysis
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Prioritization Preferences of Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Members and the Canadian Public: A Stated-Preferences Comparison

1
Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
2
School of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Curr. Oncol. 2016, 23(5), 322-328; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.3033
Submission received: 12 July 2016 / Revised: 13 August 2016 / Accepted: 5 September 2016 / Published: 1 October 2016

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 (OALY) 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.
Keywords: priority-setting; stated preferences; PCODR priority-setting; stated preferences; PCODR

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skedgel, C. The Prioritization Preferences of Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Members and the Canadian Public: A Stated-Preferences Comparison. Curr. Oncol. 2016, 23, 322-328. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.3033

AMA Style

Skedgel C. The Prioritization Preferences of Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Members and the Canadian Public: A Stated-Preferences Comparison. Current Oncology. 2016; 23(5):322-328. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.3033

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skedgel, C. 2016. "The Prioritization Preferences of Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Members and the Canadian Public: A Stated-Preferences Comparison" Current Oncology 23, no. 5: 322-328. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.3033

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop