BackgroundHealth care decision making requires making resource allocation decisions among programs, services, and technologies that all compete for a finite resource pool. Methods of priority setting that use explicitly defined criteria can aid health care decision makers in arriving at funding decisions in a transparent and systematic way. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature and examine the use of criteria-based methods in ‘real-world’ health care allocation decisions.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted to find examples of ‘real-world’ priority setting exercises that used explicit criteria to guide decision-making.ResultsWe found thirty-three examples in the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using a variety of methods and criteria. Program effectiveness, equity, affordability, cost-effectiveness, and the number of beneficiaries emerged as the most frequently-used decision criteria. The relative importance of criteria in the ‘real-world’ trials differed from the frequency in preference elicitation exercises. Neither the decision-making method used, nor the relative economic strength of the country in which the exercise took place, appeared to have a strong effect on the type of criteria chosen.ConclusionsHealth care decisions are made based on criteria related both to the health need of the population and the organizational context of the decision. Following issues related to effectiveness and affordability, ethical issues such as equity and accessibility are commonly identified as important criteria in health care resource allocation decisions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0814-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Genomic technologies are increasingly used to guide clinical decision-making in cancer control.

No abstract

Erlotinib and docetaxel are statistically equivalent in terms of treatment cost and overall survival. As treatment practice patterns change, docetaxel may become more frequently prescribed. Therefore, the choice of whether to use erlotinib or docetaxel should be based on factors relating to patient preference rather than costs or effectiveness.

Background:It is estimated that millions of North Americans would qualify for lung cancer screening and that billions of dollars of national health expenditures would be required to support population-based computed tomography lung cancer screening programs. The decision to implement such programs should be informed by data on resource utilization and costs.Methods:Resource utilization data were collected prospectively from 2059 participants in the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Participants who had 2% or greater lung cancer risk over 3 years using a risk prediction tool were recruited from seven major cities across Canada. A cost analysis was conducted from the Canadian public payer’s perspective for resources that were used for the screening and treatment of lung cancer in the initial years of the study.Results:The average per-person cost for screening individuals with LDCT was $453 (95% confidence interval [CI], $400–$505) for the initial 18-months of screening following a baseline scan. The screening costs were highly dependent on the detected lung nodule size, presence of cancer, screening intervention, and the screening center. The mean per-person cost of treating lung cancer with curative surgery was $33,344 (95% CI, $31,553–$34,935) over 2 years. This was lower than the cost of treating advanced-stage lung cancer with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or supportive care alone, ($47,792; 95% CI, $43,254–$52,200; p = 0.061).Conclusion:In the Pan-Canadian study, the average cost to screen individuals with a high risk for developing lung cancer using LDCT and the average initial cost of curative intent treatment were lower than the average per-person cost of treating advanced stage lung cancer which infrequently results in a cure.

No abstract

Background. Management of low-grade oral dysplasias (LGDs) is complicated, as only a small percentage of lesions will progress to invasive disease. The current standard of care requires patients to undergo regular monitoring of their lesions, with intervention occurring as a response to meaningful clinical changes. Recent improvements in molecular technologies and understanding of the biology of LGDs may allow clinicians to manage lesions based on their genome-guided risk. Methods. We used a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified care using a genomic assay. In the experimental arm, patients with LGDs were managed according to their risk profile using the assay, with low- and intermediate-risk patients given longer screening intervals and high-risk patients immediately treated with surgery. Patients in the comparator arm had standard care (biannual follow-up appointments at an oral cancer clinic). Incremental costs and outcomes in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated based on the results in each arm. Results. The mean cost of assay-guided management was $8,123 (95% confidence interval [CI] $2,973 to $23,062 in 2013 Canadian dollars) less than the cost of standard care. This difference was driven largely by reductions in resource use among people who did not develop cancer. Mean incremental effectiveness was 0.18 LYG (95% CI 0.08 to 0.39) or 0.64 QALY (95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). Sensitivity analysis suggests that these findings are robust to both expected and extreme variation in all parameter values. Conclusion. Use of the assay-guided management strategy costs less and is more effective than standard management of LGDs.