Looking back and moving forward: On the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe increasing demand for healthcare and the resulting pressure on available budgets render priority setting inevitable. If societies aim to improve health and distribute health(care) fairly, equity-efficiency trade-offs are necessary. In the Netherlands, proportional shortfall (PS) was introduced to quantify necessity of care, allowing a direct equity-efficiency trade-off. This study describes the history and application of PS in the Netherlands and examines the theoretical and empirical support for PS as well as its current role in healthcare decision making. We reviewed the international literature on PS from 2001 onwards, along with publicly accessible meeting reports from the Dutch appraisal committee, Adviescommissie Pakket (ACP), from 2013 to 2016. Our results indicate that there is support for the decision model in which necessity is quantified and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are evaluated against associated monetary reference values. The model enables a uniform framework for priority setting across all healthcare sectors. Although consensus about the application of PS has not yet been reached and alternative ways to quantify necessity were found in ACP reports, PS has increasingly been applied in decision making since 2015. However, empirical support for PS is limited and it may insufficiently reflect societal preferences regarding age and reducing lifetime-health inequalities. Hence, further investigation into refining PS-or exploration of another approach-appears warranted for operationalising the equity-efficiency trade-off.

Unmet Medical Need: An Introduction to Definitions and Stakeholder Perceptions

“…Burden of disease can be measured in multiple ways. [22][23][24] Alternatively, one could consider specific rules such as end-of-life criteria (eg, the HTA process in the United Kingdom). Recently, the concept of condition severity was posed as a way to unify treatment availability and disease severity.…”

Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting

“…the size, type, duration, and costs of health gains [ 1 , 4 , 10 , 15 – 18 ]. Although health economists tend to agree that such preferences should play a role in decisions concerning resource allocation in healthcare [ 4 ], they are generally not included in health-economic evaluations (even though notable exceptions like in the Netherlands exist [ 19 ]). The discrepancy between prioritisation based on health-economic evaluations and societal preferences for distributing health and healthcare is considered one of the reasons for the modest impact of health-economic evaluations on the outcome of allocation decisions [ 20 – 22 ].…”

A proposal for value informed, affordable (“via”) prices for innovative medicines

“…The greater the proportional shortfall of an illness, the more it is perceived as being "severe" and the more society should be willing to pay for the gain of QALYs. Recently, Reckers-Droog et al 29 suggested that further investigation into refining proportional shortfallor exploration of another approachappears warranted for operationalizing the equity-efficiency trade-off.…”