Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens’ Jury Exploring the Public’s Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs

Tania Stafinski (), Jacqueline Street, Andrea Young and Devidas Menon
Additional contact information
Tania Stafinski: Health Technology & Policy Unit, School of Public Health, 4-343, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
Jacqueline Street: Australian Centre for Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong 2522, Australia
Andrea Young: Health Technology & Policy Unit, School of Public Health, 4-343, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
Devidas Menon: Health Technology & Policy Unit, School of Public Health, 4-343, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 20, issue 1, 1-13

Abstract: Health system decision-makers need to understand the value of new technology to make “value for money” decisions. Typically, narrow definitions of value are used. This paper reports on a Canadian Citizens’ Jury which was convened to elicit those aspects of value that are important to the public. The criteria used by the public to determine value included those related to the patient, those directly related to caregivers and those directly created for society. Their choices were not binary (e.g., cost vs. health gained), but rather involved multiple factors (e.g., with respect to patient factors: disease severity, health gained with the drug, existence of alternatives, life expectancy, patient age and affordability). Overall, Jurors prioritized funding treatments for ultra-rare disease populations when the treatment offered significant improvements in health and quality of life, and when the pre-treatment health state was considered extremely poor. The prevalence of the disease by itself was not a factor in the choices. Some of the findings differ from previous work, which use survey methods. In our Citizens’ Jury, Jurors were able to become more familiar with the question at hand and were exposed to a broad and balanced collection of viewpoints before and throughout engaging in the exercises. This deliberative approach allows for a more nuanced approach to understanding value.

Keywords: rare diseases; value; citizen jury; resource allocation; drug funding (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/633/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/633/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2022:i:1:p:633-:d:1019756

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().