Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Authors

  • Ines Aumann
  • Svenja Litzkendorf
  • Kathrin Damm
  • J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

Research Organisations

View graph of relations

Details

Translated title of the contributionPriority setting and rationing of pharmaceuticals – an experimental analysis of discussion processes
Original languageGerman
Pages (from-to)3-13
Number of pages11
JournalZeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
Volume125
Early online date8 Jul 2017
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2017

Abstract

Background/Objective In the face of rising expenditure among statutory sickness funds in Germany it is necessary to start a discussion about priority setting in the healthcare system. For a long time this issue has been avoided in healthcare debates. As a result, normative directives are still missing, which can lead to priority setting among healthcare providers in daily healthcare practice. Prioritization can be conducted at three different levels: at the government (macro), the institutional (meso), and the patient (micro) level. Surveys about societal preferences for different criteria exist; however, specifications on their respective weighting in the situation of approval and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals (meso) are missing. For this reason, the present study analyzed the implementation and weighting of the criteria for priority setting at the meso level, taking values and experiences of the participants into account. Method Six qualitative focus groups were carried out with representatives from the fields of medicine, ethics, public health and economics. During the discussions four fictitious drugs for the treatment of different lung diseases were prioritized based on guidelines. The discussion processes were analyzed according to Bohnsack's documentary method. Results The criteria “quality of life”, “life expectancy” and “other patient-relevant outcomes” were discussed in relation to each other. The evaluation of change in patient-relevant outcomes was difficult to perform for non-medical participants. The second argument concerned the criteria “costs”, disease severity and “number of patients”. Costs were given less weight, but were often used to support other criteria. Other challenges in reaching a consensus included emerging role conflicts between profession and personal opinion, and the transfer of the discussion to a different level of decision-making. Discussion In the discussions the problem of prioritizing did not arise from different preferences for prioritization criteria, but from the weighting of the criteria. The operationalization of the criteria seemingly depends on the decision-making situation, the participants’ personal connection with the relevant disease and on the correspondence between evidence and personal experiences.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Sustainable Development Goals

Cite this

Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen. / Aumann, Ines; Litzkendorf, Svenja; Damm, Kathrin et al.
In: Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, Vol. 125, 08.2017, p. 3-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer review

Aumann, I, Litzkendorf, S, Damm, K & von der Schulenburg, JMG 2017, 'Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen', Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, vol. 125, pp. 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010
Aumann, I., Litzkendorf, S., Damm, K., & von der Schulenburg, J. M. G. (2017). Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 125, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010
Aumann I, Litzkendorf S, Damm K, von der Schulenburg JMG. Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 2017 Aug;125:3-13. Epub 2017 Jul 8. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010
Aumann, Ines ; Litzkendorf, Svenja ; Damm, Kathrin et al. / Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel : eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen. In: Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 2017 ; Vol. 125. pp. 3-13.
Download
@article{43570201f4b246b78a43cf2d22464c26,
title = "Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel: eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen",
abstract = "Background/Objective In the face of rising expenditure among statutory sickness funds in Germany it is necessary to start a discussion about priority setting in the healthcare system. For a long time this issue has been avoided in healthcare debates. As a result, normative directives are still missing, which can lead to priority setting among healthcare providers in daily healthcare practice. Prioritization can be conducted at three different levels: at the government (macro), the institutional (meso), and the patient (micro) level. Surveys about societal preferences for different criteria exist; however, specifications on their respective weighting in the situation of approval and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals (meso) are missing. For this reason, the present study analyzed the implementation and weighting of the criteria for priority setting at the meso level, taking values and experiences of the participants into account. Method Six qualitative focus groups were carried out with representatives from the fields of medicine, ethics, public health and economics. During the discussions four fictitious drugs for the treatment of different lung diseases were prioritized based on guidelines. The discussion processes were analyzed according to Bohnsack's documentary method. Results The criteria “quality of life”, “life expectancy” and “other patient-relevant outcomes” were discussed in relation to each other. The evaluation of change in patient-relevant outcomes was difficult to perform for non-medical participants. The second argument concerned the criteria “costs”, disease severity and “number of patients”. Costs were given less weight, but were often used to support other criteria. Other challenges in reaching a consensus included emerging role conflicts between profession and personal opinion, and the transfer of the discussion to a different level of decision-making. Discussion In the discussions the problem of prioritizing did not arise from different preferences for prioritization criteria, but from the weighting of the criteria. The operationalization of the criteria seemingly depends on the decision-making situation, the participants{\textquoteright} personal connection with the relevant disease and on the correspondence between evidence and personal experiences.",
keywords = "decision-making process, focus groups, priority setting, qualitative research, rationing",
author = "Ines Aumann and Svenja Litzkendorf and Kathrin Damm and {von der Schulenburg}, {J. Matthias Graf}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 Copyright: Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2017",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010",
language = "Deutsch",
volume = "125",
pages = "3--13",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Priorisierung und Rationierung von Arzneimittel

T2 - eine experimentelle Analyse von Diskussionsprozessen

AU - Aumann, Ines

AU - Litzkendorf, Svenja

AU - Damm, Kathrin

AU - von der Schulenburg, J. Matthias Graf

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Copyright: Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2017/8

Y1 - 2017/8

N2 - Background/Objective In the face of rising expenditure among statutory sickness funds in Germany it is necessary to start a discussion about priority setting in the healthcare system. For a long time this issue has been avoided in healthcare debates. As a result, normative directives are still missing, which can lead to priority setting among healthcare providers in daily healthcare practice. Prioritization can be conducted at three different levels: at the government (macro), the institutional (meso), and the patient (micro) level. Surveys about societal preferences for different criteria exist; however, specifications on their respective weighting in the situation of approval and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals (meso) are missing. For this reason, the present study analyzed the implementation and weighting of the criteria for priority setting at the meso level, taking values and experiences of the participants into account. Method Six qualitative focus groups were carried out with representatives from the fields of medicine, ethics, public health and economics. During the discussions four fictitious drugs for the treatment of different lung diseases were prioritized based on guidelines. The discussion processes were analyzed according to Bohnsack's documentary method. Results The criteria “quality of life”, “life expectancy” and “other patient-relevant outcomes” were discussed in relation to each other. The evaluation of change in patient-relevant outcomes was difficult to perform for non-medical participants. The second argument concerned the criteria “costs”, disease severity and “number of patients”. Costs were given less weight, but were often used to support other criteria. Other challenges in reaching a consensus included emerging role conflicts between profession and personal opinion, and the transfer of the discussion to a different level of decision-making. Discussion In the discussions the problem of prioritizing did not arise from different preferences for prioritization criteria, but from the weighting of the criteria. The operationalization of the criteria seemingly depends on the decision-making situation, the participants’ personal connection with the relevant disease and on the correspondence between evidence and personal experiences.

AB - Background/Objective In the face of rising expenditure among statutory sickness funds in Germany it is necessary to start a discussion about priority setting in the healthcare system. For a long time this issue has been avoided in healthcare debates. As a result, normative directives are still missing, which can lead to priority setting among healthcare providers in daily healthcare practice. Prioritization can be conducted at three different levels: at the government (macro), the institutional (meso), and the patient (micro) level. Surveys about societal preferences for different criteria exist; however, specifications on their respective weighting in the situation of approval and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals (meso) are missing. For this reason, the present study analyzed the implementation and weighting of the criteria for priority setting at the meso level, taking values and experiences of the participants into account. Method Six qualitative focus groups were carried out with representatives from the fields of medicine, ethics, public health and economics. During the discussions four fictitious drugs for the treatment of different lung diseases were prioritized based on guidelines. The discussion processes were analyzed according to Bohnsack's documentary method. Results The criteria “quality of life”, “life expectancy” and “other patient-relevant outcomes” were discussed in relation to each other. The evaluation of change in patient-relevant outcomes was difficult to perform for non-medical participants. The second argument concerned the criteria “costs”, disease severity and “number of patients”. Costs were given less weight, but were often used to support other criteria. Other challenges in reaching a consensus included emerging role conflicts between profession and personal opinion, and the transfer of the discussion to a different level of decision-making. Discussion In the discussions the problem of prioritizing did not arise from different preferences for prioritization criteria, but from the weighting of the criteria. The operationalization of the criteria seemingly depends on the decision-making situation, the participants’ personal connection with the relevant disease and on the correspondence between evidence and personal experiences.

KW - decision-making process

KW - focus groups

KW - priority setting

KW - qualitative research

KW - rationing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022058656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010

DO - 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.04.010

M3 - Artikel

C2 - 28694036

AN - SCOPUS:85022058656

VL - 125

SP - 3

EP - 13

JO - Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen

JF - Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen

SN - 1865-9217

ER -