Guruprasad Madhavan

Using Multicriteria Approaches to Assess the Value of Health Care

Practitioners of cost-utility analysis know that their models omit several important factors that often affect real-world decisions about health care options. Furthermore, cost-utility analyses typically reflect only single perspectives (e.g., individual, business, and societal), further limiting the value for those with different perspectives (patients, providers, payers, producers, and planners-the 5Ps). We discuss how models based on multicriteria analyses, which look at problems from many perspectives, can fill this void. Each of the 5Ps can use multicriteria analyses in different ways to aid their decisions. Each perspective may lead to different value measures and outcomes, whereas no single-metric approach (such as cost-utility analysis) can satisfy all these stakeholders. All stakeholders have unique ways to measure value, even if assessing the same health intervention. We illustrate the benefits of this approach by comparing the value of five different hypothetical treatment choices for five hypothetical patients with cancer, each with different preference structures. Nine attributes describe each treatment option. We add a brief discussion regarding the use of these approaches in group-based decisions. We urge that methods to value health interventions embrace the multicriteria approaches that we discuss, because these approaches 1) increase transparency about the decision process, 2) allow flight simulator-type evaluation of alternative interventions before actual investment or deployment, 3) help focus efforts to improve data in an efficient manner, 4) at least in some cases help facilitate decision convergence among stakeholders with differing perspectives, and 5) help avoid potential cognitive errors known to impair intuitive judgments.

Planning and priority setting for vaccine development and immunization

Abstract We review a sequence of strategic planning efforts over time in the United States, all involving processes to prioritize new vaccine candidates. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has been involved in three priority setting processes, each using different metrics and methodologies: infant mortality equivalents (1985–1986), cost-effectiveness (2000), and more recently, the implementation of a software system based on a broader multi-criteria systems approach that can include either of the earlier metrics among other various considerations (2015). The systems approach offers users the flexibility to select, combine, rank, weigh and evaluate different attributes representing their perspectives, assumptions, and particular needs. This approach also overcomes concerns relating to the previous single-metric ranking approaches that yielded lists that, once published, were static, and could not readily accommodate new information about emerging pathogens, new scientific advances, or changes in the costs and performance features of interventions. We discuss the rationale and reasoning behind the design of this multi-criteria decision support approach, stakeholder feedback about the tool, and highlight the potential advantages from using this expanded approach to better inform and support vaccine policies.