Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using MCDA as a Decision Aid in Health Technology Appraisal for Coverage Decisions: Opportunities, Challenges and Unresolved Questions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions

Abstract

Existing Health Technology Appraisal (HTA) processes almost inevitably require the consideration of multiple criteria which go beyond improvements in patient and population health. MCDA offers a way of structuring these decision processes and making them more transparent and consistent. Its use represents a way of complementing and supporting deliberative processes, rather than supplanting them. This can also assist the accountability of HTA decisions to stakeholders.

MCDA has the potential to address a number of limitations of current HTA systems. However, its application in HTA requires careful consideration of a number of issues, including how the decision criteria are selected and weighted; whose values should be used; how budget constraints and opportunity costs are addressed; and how uncertainty in evidence is handled. The way forward on these fundamental questions will depend on the type of the decision problem and of the objectives of the health-care system within which decisions are being made.

There needs to be a consideration of the balance between additional organisational costs of implementing an MCDA approach and additional benefits of improved decision making process. Even where MCDA cannot follow ‘best practise’, partial implementation (e.g. use of a performance matrix) may still have the potential to improve the decision making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An exception is the Swedish approach to HTA, which stipulates a preference for using patients’ ‘experience-based’ values, rather than those of the general public, in the valuation of quality of life.

  2. 2.

    ‘The A4R framework consists of four conditions: process must be public (fully transparent) about the grounds for its decisions; the decision must rest on reasons that stakeholders can agree are relevant; decisions should be revisable in light of new evidence and arguments; and there should be assurance through enforcement that these conditions (publicity, relevance, and revisability) are met’ (Norman and Sabin <CitationRef CitationID="CR36" >2008</Citation Ref>).

References

  • Appleby J, Devlin N, Parkin D, Buxton M, Chalkidou K (2009) Searching for cost-effectiveness thresholds in the NHS. Health Policy 91(Suppl 3):239–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baltussen R, Niessen I (2006) Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 4:14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Batista RN, Hodge MJ (2009) The “natural history” of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(Supplement 1):281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnsley P, Cubi-Molla P, Fischer A, and Towse A. (2016) “Uncertainty and Risk in HTA Decision Making” OHE research paper. Available at https://www.ohe.org/publications/uncertainty-and-risk-hta-decision-making

  • Brazier J, Tsuchiya A (2015) Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13(6):557–565

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier J et al (2005) Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 4(4):201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broekhuizen H et al (2015) A review and classification of approaches for dealing with uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis for healthcare decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 33:445–455

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K, Devlin N (2013) Report on structured decision making for NICE’s 2013 methods review

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K et al (2015) Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess 19(14):1–503

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Culyer AJ (1991) The normative economics of health care finance and provision. In: McGuire A, Fenn P, Mayhew K (eds) Providing health care: the economics of alternative systems of finance and delivery. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer AJ (2009) Deliberative processes in decisions about health care technologies. OHE Seminar, London, https://www.ohe.org/publications/deliberative-processes-decisions-about-health-care-technologies#sthash.Z4P0eCXU.dpuf

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer AJ (2012) Chapter 2. Extra welfarism. In: Cookson R, Claxton K (eds) The humble economist. OHE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer AJ, McCabe C, Briggs A, Claxton K, Buxton M, Akehust R, Sculpher M, Brazier J (2007) Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. J Health Serv Res Policy 12(Suppl 1):56–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health (2010) A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation. Department of Health, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin N, Sussex J (2011) Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA. Methods and processes. OHE research. Available at: https://www.ohe.org/publications/incorporating-multiple-criteria-hta-methods-and-processes

  • Dodgson JS, Spackman M, Pearman A, Phillips LD (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, Available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/12761/1/Multi-criteria_Analysis.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson C (2011) Willingness to pay and publicly funded health care: contradiction in terms? Briefing, OHE Seminar, Available at https://www.ohe.org/publications/willingness-pay-and-publicly-funded-health-care-contradiction-terms#sthash.2ffK4iYL.dpuf

    Google Scholar 

  • Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 4th edn. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • EVIDEM (2015) Decision Criteria. Conceptual background, definitions, design & instructions. EVIDEM Collaboration. https://www.evidem.org/docs/2015/EVIDEM-v3-0-Decision-criteria-conceptual-background-definitions-and-instructions-June-2015.pdf

  • Garrido G, Rottingen B (2010) Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy 94(3):196–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Golan O, Hansen P (2012) Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res 1:44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O (2011) Health technology prioritization: which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy 102(2–3):126–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks EP, Kluemper GT (2011) Heuristic reasoning and cognitive biases: are they hindrances to judgements and decision making in orthodontics? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(3):297–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • INAHTA. http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/

  • Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioural economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1449–1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, Devlin N, Walker A (2015) Local health care expenditure plans and their opportunity costs. Health Policy 119(9):1237–1244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, Hughes D, Devlin N (2016) Opportunity costs and local health service spending decisions: a qualitative study from Wales. BMC Health Serv Res 16:103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kind P (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis: a view into the abyss. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13(3):269–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzhaber JA (1993) Prioritising health services in an era of limits: the Oregon experience. BMJ 307(6900):373–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh K et al (2014) Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 32:345–365. Value Health 19:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh K. et al. (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—Emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA. Emerging GoodPracticesTaskForce

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C (2008) Willingness to pay for a QALY: past, present and future. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 8(6):575–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D (2007) Economic analysis in health care. Wiley, Chichester, p 236

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – NICE (2013) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. NICE. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf

  • Norheim OF, Baltussen R, Johri M et al (2014) Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Res Alloc 12:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman D, Sabin J (2008) Accountability for reasonableness: un updated. BMJ 337:a1850, Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a1850.full.print?

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C (2015) Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics 33(3):255–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock S, Mitton C, Bate A, McCoy B, Donaldson C (2009) Overcoming barriers to priority setting using interdisciplinary methods. Health Policy 92(2):124–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips D (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Fasolo B, Zafiropoulos N, Beyer A (2011) Is quantitative benefit-risk modelling of drugs desirable or possible? Drug Discov Today Technol 8(1):e3–e10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen AK (1977) Social choice theory: a re-examination. Econometrica 45:53–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah KK, Praet C, Devlin NJ, Sussex JM, Appleby J, Parkin D (2012) Is the aim of the health care system to maximise QALYs? J Health Serv Res Policy 17(3):157–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SMC (2015) PACE – patient and clinician engagement. Factsheet. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/PACE/PACE_factsheet_FINAL.pdf

  • Sugden R (2008) Citizens, consumers and clients: Alan Williams and the political economy of cost–benefit analysis in The Ideas and Influence of Alan Williams. Ed. by Mason A, and Towse A. Available at https://www.ohe.org/publications/ideas-and-influence-alan-williams-be-reasonable-%E2%80%93-do-it-my-way

    Google Scholar 

  • Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A (2013a) A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health 16(8):1163–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N (2013b) Operationalising value based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics 13(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thokala P, Duenas A (2012) Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 15(8):1172–1181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thokala P, et al., for the ISPOR MCDA Task Force (2016) MCDA for Health care decision making – an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 19(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse A, Barnsley P (2013) Approaches to identifying, measuring, and aggregating elements of value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29(4):360–364

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Towse A, Devlin N, Hawe E, Garrison L (2011) The evolution of HTA in emerging markets health care systems: analysis to support a policy response. OHE consulting report. Office of Health Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Til J, Groothius-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M (2014) Does techiques matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Res Alloc 12:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2010a) Health system financing. The path to universal coverage. Available at: http://www.who.int/whr/2010/en/

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2010b) Media release on the Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/WHA-20140524/en/

  • Youngkong S, Baltussen R, Tantivess S, Mohara A, Teerawattanon Y (2012) Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the Universal Health Coverage Benefit package in Thailand. Value Health 15:961–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Adrian Towse, Grace Marsden, Hector Castro and the editors for their valuable comments received on an early draft of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Office of Health Economics, London, UK

    Martina Garau & Nancy J. Devlin

Authors
  1. Martina Garau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy J. Devlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Garau .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Evidera, London, United Kingdom

    Kevin Marsh

  2. School of Public Health, University of Montreal and LASER Analytica, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Mireille Goetghebeur

  3. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Praveen Thokala

  4. Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Rob Baltussen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garau, M., Devlin, N.J. (2017). Using MCDA as a Decision Aid in Health Technology Appraisal for Coverage Decisions: Opportunities, Challenges and Unresolved Questions. In: Marsh, K., Goetghebeur, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R. (eds) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47540-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47538-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47540-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation