Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement

Health Policy

Volumn 119, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 588-596

  Douglas, Conor M W ^a   Wilcox, Elizabeth ^a   Burgess, Michael ^a   Lynd, Larry D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Coverage; Decision making; Orphan drugs; Policy; Public and patient involvement; Rare diseases

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

ARTICLE; CANADA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; ENZYME REPLACEMENT; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; RARE DISEASE; REIMBURSEMENT; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; INSURANCE; PHARMACOECONOMICS; RARE DISEASES;

CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; POLICY MAKING; RARE DISEASES;

EID: 84933676896     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Brown P., Zavestoski S. Social movements in health: an introduction. Social Health Illness 2004 Sep 1, 26(6):679-694.
2. Epstein S. Patient Groups and Health Movements, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies [Internet]. 2008, 499-539. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusett, http://www.uc.pt/en/fmuc/phdhs/Courses/HealthandDevelopment/Patient_groups_and_Health_movements__EPSTEIN_1_.pdf. [cited 07.03.14]. Third.
3. Oliver S., Gray J. A Bibliography of Research Reports about Patients', Clinicians' and Researchers' Priorities for New Research 2006 Dec, 1-46. James Lind Alliance, London, http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/pdfs/JLA_Oliver%20and%20Gray%20report%2007_01_20.pdf. [cited 01.03.14].
4. O'Doherty K., Einsiedel E. Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies 2012, 358. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.
5. Burgess J., Chilvers J. Upping the ante: a conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments. Science Public Policy 2006, 33(10 (Dec 1)):713-728.
6. O'Doherty K.C., Burgess M.M., Edwards K., Gallagher R.P., Hawkins A.K., Kaye J., et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Social Science and Medicine 2011, 73(3 (Aug)):367-374.
7. Hailey D., Werkö S., Bakri R., Cameron A., Göhlen B., Myles S., et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. The International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2013, 29(1 (Jan)):79-83.
8. Watson V., Carnon A., Ryan M., Cox D. Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. Journal of Public Health 2012, 34(2 (Jun 1)):253-260.
9. Menon D., Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expectations 2008, 11(3 (Sep)):282-293.
10. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 1999, 49(1-2 (Sep)):45-61.
11. Gallego G., Taylor S.J., Brien J.E. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study. Health Policy 2007, 84(1 (Nov)):58-66.
12. Guttman N., Shalev C., Kaplan G., Abulafia A., Bin-Nun G., Goffer R., et al. What should be given a priority-costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expectations 2008, 11(2):177-188.
13. Abelson J., Giacomini M., Lehoux P., Gauvin F.-P. Bringing the public into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy 2007, 82(1 (Jun)):37-50.
14. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2000, 25(1 (Jan 1)):3-29.
15. Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States 2011, 392. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (USA).
16. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 (2002-H.R. 4013) [Internet]. GovTrack.us. [cited 26.09.14]. Available from: 〈https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr4013〉.
17. Priest L. National drug policy for rare diseases has fallen between the cracks. The Globe and Mail [Internet]. 2011 Apr 4 [cited 07.04.14]; Available from: 〈http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/national-drug-policy-for-rare-diseases-has-fallen-between-the-cracks/article575248/〉.
18. Commissioner O of the. Orphan Drug Act [Internet]. [cited 27.06.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/significantamendmentstothefdcact/orphandrugact/default.htm〉.
19. Rooswinkel R., Mulder G.-J., van Deventer S. Acquiring orphans. Nature Biotechnology 2014, 32(3 (Mar)):213-216.
20. Long G, Works J. Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Pipeline: a Multidimensional View [Internet]. Analysis Group; 2013 Jan [cited 01.09.13] p. 1-34. Available from: 〈http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/2012_Innovation_in_the_Biopharmaceutical_Pipeline.pdf〉.
21. Rollet P., Lemoine A., Dunoyer M. Sustainable rare diseases business and drug access: no time for misconceptions. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2013, 8(1 (Jul 23)):109.
22. Lee D.K., Wong B. An Orphan Drug Framework (ODF) for Canada. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology 2013, 21(1 (Dec)):e42-e46.
23. Lee D.K. Canada's progress toward an orphan drug framework: 2014. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology 2013, 21(1 (Dec)):e41.
24. Lavandeira A. Orphan drugs: legal aspects, current situation. Haemophilia 2002, 8(3 (May 1)):194-198.
25. Government of Ontario M of H and L-TC. Drugs For Rare Diseases (DRD)-Health Care Professionals-MOHLTC [Internet]. [cited 19.12.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/drugs/how_drugs_approv/review_rare_diseases.aspx〉.
26. Winquist E., Bell C.M., Clarke J.T.R., Evans G., Martin J., Sabharwal M., et al. An evaluation framework for funding drugs for rare diseases. Value Health 2012, 15(6 (Sep)):982-986.
27. Government of Ontario M of H and L-TC. Drug System Reforms-MOHLTC [Internet]. [cited 11.07.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/drugs/councils/〉.
28. The Drug Review Process in B.C.-Detailed-drugrevproc.pdf [Internet]. [cited 19.12.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/outgoing/drugrevproc.pdf〉.
29. Government of Bristish Columbia Ministry of Health. Your Voice [Internet]. Ministry of Health Pharmacare. [cited 19.12.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pharmacare/yourvoice/〉.
30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Get Involved | NICE [Internet]. NICE. 2014 [cited 19.12.14]. Available from: 〈https://www.nice.org.uk/get-involved〉.
31. Kelson M. The NICE Patient Involvement Unit. Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health 2005, 9(4 (Aug)):304-307.
32. Home | pcodr.ca [Internet]. Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. 2011 [cited 22.09.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.pcodr.ca/wcpc/portal/Home?_afrLoop=3803527145027000&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=kjqe2sshv_190〉.
33. McCabe C., Claxton K., Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity?. BMJ 2005, 331(7523 (Oct 29)):1016-1019.
34. Dolgin E. Big pharma moves from blockbusters to niche busters. Nature Medicine 2010, 16(8 (Aug)):837.
35. Collier R. Bye, bye blockbusters, hello niche busters. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2011, 183(11 (Aug 9)):E697-E698.
36. Melnikova I. Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Nature Review Drug Discovery 2012, 11(4 (Apr)):267-268.
37. Rizzardo S. An evaluation of Canadians values and attitudes towards expensive drugs for rare diseases. 2014 [cited 23.09.14]; Available from: 〈http://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/46537〉.
38. Jonsen A.R. 3 bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Medicine & Health Care 1986, 14:172.
39. Gershon G, Ontario Citizen's Council. A report of the Ontario Citizens' Council considerations for funding rare diseases [Internet]. Toronto, Ontatio; 2010 [cited 13.03.14] p. 1-27. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/drugs/councils/reports.aspx〉.
40. McArthur D. Response to Citizens' Council-Ontario Public Drug Programs-Ministry Programs-Public Information-MOHLTC [Internet]. 2010 [cited 13.03.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/drugs/councils/reports.aspx〉.
41. Rosenberg-Yunger Z.R.S., Thorsteinsdóttir H., Daar A.S., Martin D.K. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective. Health Policy 2012, 105(2-3 (May)):226-235.
42. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH Consultation-Drugs for Rare Diseases [Internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. [cited 13.03.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/cdr-update/cdr-update-94#_edn2〉.
43. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Update on the CADTH approach to the review of drugs for rare diseases and integration of these reviews into the CADTH Common Drug Review process [Internet]. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. [cited 11.07.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/cdr/cdr-update/cdr-update-103〉.
44. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 1969, 35(4 (Jul 1)):216-224.
45. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2005, 30(2 (Apr 1)):251-290.
46. Citizens Council | Get Involved | NICE [Internet]. [cited 08.10.14]. Available from: 〈http://www.nice.org.uk/get-involved/citizens-council〉.
47. NICE CC. NICE Citizens Council Report on Ultra Orphan Drugs [Internet]. London, UK: NICE; 2004 Nov [cited 08.10.14] p. 1-36. Report no.: 4. Available from: 〈http://www.nice.org.uk/proxy/?sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nice.org.uk%2FniceMedia%2Fpdf%2Fboardmeeting%2Fbrdjan05item4.pdf〉.
48. Burgess M., O'Doherty K., Secko D. Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Personalized Medicine 2008, 5(3 (May)):285-296.
49. Williams I., Phillips D., Nicholson C., Shearer H. Evaluation of a deliberative approach to citizen involvement in health care priority setting. Leadership in Health Services 2014, 27(1 (Jan 28)):5-19.
50. Wynne B. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values 1991, 16(1 (Jan)):111-121.