Stakeholder value judgments in decision-making on the incorporation, financing, and allocation of new health technologies in limited-resource settings: a potential Brazilian approach

• Published in: Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública
• Main Authors: Luiz Santoro Neto, Fernanda Lessa, Elene Paltrinieri Nardi, Marcos Bosi Ferraz
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English; Spanish; Portuguese
• Published: Pan American Health Organization 2018
• Subjects: Technology assessment; biomedical; decision making; organizational; judgment; Brazil; Medicine; R; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2018.102; https://doaj.org/article/c536001e14a94bdbbeff33287cb0940d

Objective. To analyze the value judgments behind cost–benefit tradeoffs made by health stakeholders in deciding whether or not to incorporate new health technologies and how they should be financed and allocated in limited-resource settings in Brazil. Method. From June 2009 to January 2010, a sample of stakeholders in the public and private health sector was identified and invited to complete an online survey consisting of two questionnaires: one collecting socio-demographic/professional information and one capturing resource allocation preferences in four hypothetical scenarios for the incorporation of new health technologies. Results. A total of 193 respondents completed the survey; more than half were male (53.9%) and the most common age group was 31–40 years (36.8%). Scenario 1 (incorporation of a new drug treatment for chronic disease, by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs) was rejected by 49.2% of the survey sample, who preferred to maintain the status quo for existing programs. Scenario 2 (incorporation of the same new treatment, but financed by a new tax) was rejected by 58.0%. Scenario 3 (incorporation of a new treatment for a highly lethal disease, by age group—20–75 years versus 75+ years—by reducing/eliminating resources for existing programs), was rejected by 42.0%, while 20.7% supported allocations for both groups, 34.2% supported allocations exclusively for the 20–75-year age group, and 3.1% supported allocations exclusively for the 75+ year age group. For Scenario 4, which consisted of five different resource allocations for prevention and treatment programs for another highly lethal disease, the most preferred option (chosen by 50.8% of respondents) was 75%:25% (­prevention versus treatment). Conclusions. When incorporating a new health technology requires reducing/eliminating other health programs, financing it through a tax, or having to choose certain age groups (e.g., younger, working people versus older people), respondents are likely to reject it. When offered the choice ...