BACKGROUND: In addition to cost-effectiveness, national guidelines often include other factors in reimbursement decisions. However, weights attached to these are rarely quantified, thus decisions can depend strongly on decision-maker preferences. OBJECTIVE: To explore the preferences of policymakers and healthcare professionals involved in the decision-making process for different efficiency and equity attributes of interventions and to analyse cross-country differences. METHOD: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were carried out in Austria, Hungary, and Norway with policymakers and other professionals working in the health industry (N = 153 respondents). Interventions were described in terms of different efficiency and equity attributes (severity of disease, target age of the population and willingness to subsidise others, potential number of beneficiaries, individual health benefit, and cost-effectiveness). Parameter estimates from the DCE were used to calculate the probability of choosing a healthcare intervention with different characteristics, and to rank different equity and efficiency attributes according to their importance. RESULTS: In all three countries, cost-effectiveness, individual health benefit and severity of the disease were significant and equally important determinants of decisions. All countries show preferences for interventions targeting young and middle aged populations compared to those targeting populations over 60. However, decision-makers in Austria and Hungary show preferences more oriented to efficiency than equity, while those in Norway show equal preferences for equity and efficiency attributes. CONCLUSION: We find that factors other than cost-effectiveness seem to play an equally important role in decision-making. We also find evidence of cross-country differences in the weight of efficiency and equity attributes.

CERGE EI Prague Czech Republic

Departamento de Economía Aplicada 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid Spain

Department of Health Economics Corvinus University of Budapest Fővám tér 8 Budapest 1093 Hungary

Economics Department School of Social Sciences University of Southampton Southampton UK

Murdoch University Murdoch Australia

University of Bologna Bologna Italy

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011 Mar 1;9(2):73-9 PubMed

Health Econ. 2014 Sep 23;:null PubMed

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):310-5 PubMed

Health Policy. 2009 Apr;90(1):45-57 PubMed

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Apr;26(2):198-204 PubMed

BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb 15;12:39 PubMed

J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014 Mar 11;2:null PubMed

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Aug 29;12:18 PubMed

Value Health. 2012 May;15(3):534-9 PubMed

J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2014 Jun;17(2):61-73 PubMed

Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Aug;14(8):930-9 PubMed

Health Econ. 2006 Jul;15(7):689-96 PubMed

Health Econ. 2009 Aug;18(8):951-76 PubMed

Eur J Health Econ. 2014 May;15 Suppl 1:S13-25 PubMed

Health Policy Plan. 2007 May;22(3):178-85 PubMed

Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55-64 PubMed

Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Apr;32(4):345-65 PubMed

Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):487-9 PubMed

Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2012 Feb 7;132(3):312-4 PubMed

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Aug 21;4:14 PubMed

Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Oct;13(5):525-31 PubMed

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Sep;70(3):346-9 PubMed

J Public Health (Oxf). 2012 Jun;34(2):253-60 PubMed

Patient. 2014;7(4):365-86 PubMed

Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):903-17 PubMed

Int J Equity Health. 2008 Jan 21;7:4 PubMed

Soc Sci Med. 2007 Apr;64(8):1738-53 PubMed