Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study

References

• Hsu M, Anen C, Quartz SR. The right and the good: distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science. 2008;320(5879):1092–1095. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2000;321(7272):1316–1318.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kapiriri L, Norheim OF. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders’ values. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(3):172–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilson L, Russell S, Buse K. The political economy of user fees with targeting: developing equitable health financing policy. J Int Dev. 1995;7(3):369–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380070305.
   Google Scholar
• Douw K, Vondeling H, Oortwijn W. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: views of health care stakeholders and health economists. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2006;76(3):334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asante AD, Zwi AB. Factors influencing resource allocation decisions and equity in the health system of Ghana. Public Health. 2009;123(5):371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra A, Skinner J. Technology growth and expenditure growth in health care. J Econ Lit. 2012;50(3):645–680. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.3.645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samadi AH, Homaie RA. Determinants of healthcare expenditure in economic cooperation organization (ECO) countries: evidence from panel cointegration tests. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2013;1(1):63–68. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2013.10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Govindaraj R, Reich MR, Cohen JC. World bank pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Seiter A. How can universal health coverage address out-of-pocket payments for medicines? http://www.worldbank.org. 2015. Accessed 2 Feb 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Saksena P, Xu K, Durairaj V. The drivers of catastrophic expenditure: outpatient services, hospitalization or medicines. World Health Rep. 2010;1:21.
   Google Scholar
• Yektadoost A, Ebrahimi F, Mashouf M, Hadidi N, Koopaei NN, Kebriaeezadeh A. Trend analysis of medicine consumption based on therapeutic categories in Iran: 2000–2016. J Res Pharm Pract. 2018;7(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.JRPP_17_96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yazdian Gh, Karimi I, Toufighi Sh. Comparative study on health management of special patients and designing a model in Iran. J Pajouhesh dar Pezeshki. 2009;32(4):271–278 (Persian).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheraghali AM. Trends in Iran pharmaceutical market. Iran J Pharm Res. 2017;16(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gharibnaseri Z, Davari M, Cheraghali A, Eshghi P, Ravanbod R, Espandar R, et al. Health care resource utilization and cost of care for haemophilia A and B patients in Iran. Transfus Apher Sci. 2016;54(1):122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2016.01.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esmaeilzadeh F, Azarkeivan A, Emamgholipour S, Akbari Sari A, Yaseri M, Ahmadi B, et al. Economic burden of Thalassemia Major in Iran, 2015. J Res Health Sci. 2016;16(3):111–115.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• An approach to the cost of medication and treatment of specific patients; Available from: https://donya-e-eqtesad.com/. Accessed 5 June 2019.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. MDG Gap Task Force Report 2008: delivering on the global partnership for achieving the millennium development goals. New York: United Nations; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Das P, Durairaj V, Laing R, Abegunde DO. Options for financing and optimizing medicines in World Medicines Situation Report. Background Paper, No 34. Health system financing. the path of universal coverage. World Health Organization. 2010. http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/34Medicinesrev.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Zare H, Trujillo AJ, Driessen J, Ghasemi M, Gallego G. Health inequalities and development plans in Iran; an analysis of the past three decades (1984–2010). Int j Equity Health. 2014;13:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-13-42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Signing an agreement for special and incurable a chronic diseases between Iran Food and Drug Organization (IFDA) and health insurance funds; https://www.fda.gov.ir/. Accessed 31 Dec 2015.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod T, Harris A, Mahal A. Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: a critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. Patient. 2016;9(3):201–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0139-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenberg J. Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1990. p. 111–157
   Google Scholar
• Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Schwappach DLB. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 2002;5(3):210–222.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00182.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitty JA, Littlejohns P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2015;119(2):127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallego G, Taylor SJ, McNeill P, Brien JA. Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia. Health Expect. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Rundle-Thiele SR. Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: a pilot study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(2):73–79.https://doi.org/10.2165/11537150-000000000-00000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–964.https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chim L, Salkeld G, Kelly P, Lipworth W, Hughes DA, Stockler MR. Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: a cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia. PLoS ONE. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon SH, Park SK, Byun JH, Lee EK. Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(4):411–419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitty JA, Rundle-Thiele SR, Scuffham PA. Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. Int J Pharm Healthc Mark. 2008;2(3):216–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506120810903980.
   Google Scholar
• Wortley S, Tong A, Howard K. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasemsup V, Schommer JC, Cline RR, Hadsall RS. Citizen’s preferences regarding principles to guide health-care allocation decisions in Thailand. Value in Health. 2008;11(7):1194–1202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olyaaeemanesh A, Jaafaripooyan E, Abdollahiasl A, Davari M, Mousavi SM, Mansoor Delpasand. Pharmaceutical subsidy policy in Iran: a qualitative stakeholder analysis. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021. (in submission).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chim L, Kelly PJ, Salkeld G, Stockler MR. Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):463–475. https://doi.org/10.2165/11533000-000000000-00000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(2):198–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462310000048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaby V, Dié Kakou H, Lachaine J. Eliciting preferences for reimbursed drugs selection criteria in Cte dIvoire. PATIENT. 2011;4(2):125–131. https://doi.org/10.2165/11586060-000000000-00000
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health econ policy law. 2011;6(3):405–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133110000344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolet A, van Asselt ADI, Vermeulen KM, Krabbe PFM. Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Kolstad JR, Rockers PC, Dolea C. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. Washington: The World Bank; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson JL, Balmer DF, Giardino AP. Qualitative research methods for medical educators. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(5):375–386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. New York: Sage; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3:249–256
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, Gonsalves C, Ufholz LA, Mascioli K, Wang C, Foth T. The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1491–1498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, Hill S, Matus A, Scholes-Robertson N, Oliver S, Cowan K, Nasser M, Bhaumik S, Gutman T. Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirzaei J, Lorestani A, Mirzaei J. Spatial analysis of prosperity levels in Tehran metropolis from the perspective of urban economics. J Urban Econ Manag. 2015;3(11):59–77.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D. Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals: some recent developments. In: David A. Hensher, Peter R. Stopher (eds.) Behavioural Travel Modelling. Routledge; 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156055-18
   Google Scholar
• Corsi DJ, Mejía-Guevara I, Subramanian SV. Risk factors for chronic undernutrition among children in India: estimating relative importance, population attributable risk and fractions. Soc Sci Med. 2016;1(157):165–185.
   Google Scholar
• Bruni RA, Laupacis A, Martin DK, for the University of Toronto Priority Setting in Health Care Research Group. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179(1):15–18. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071656
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkelhage J, Diederich A. The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources—controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2012;9(1):223–243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9010223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farmakas ATM, Galanis P, Karayiannis G, Ghobrial S, Polyzos N, Papastavrou E, Agapidaki E, Souliotis K. Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017;9(15):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-017-0078-3.
   Google Scholar
• Polisena J, Burgess M, Mitton C, Lynd LD. Engaging the Canadian public on reimbursement decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: a national online survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):372. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2310-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, McCallum A. QALY-maximisation, and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ. 2002;11(8):679–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan PSR, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez E, Pinto JL. The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor? Health Econ. 2000;9:611–621. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.235523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya A, Dolan P, Shaw R. Measuring people’s preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:687–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00418-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lees A, Scott N, Scott SN, MacDonald S, Campbell C. Deciding how NHS money is spent: a survey of general public and medical views. Health Expect. 2002;5:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00157.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwappach DLB. Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 2003;12:255–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diederich A, Winkelhage J, Wirsik N. Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(8): e23930. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stafinski T, Menon D. Explicating social values for resource allocation decisions on new cancer technologies: We, the jury, find. J Cancer Policy. 2017;14:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2017.09.002.
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy. 2000;51(1):19–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18(8):951–976. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryynanen OP, Myllykangas MT, Kinnunen J, Takala J. Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:1529–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00222-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar