Public acceptance of different approaches to determine drug reimbursement prices and whether it is influenced by framing

Purpose – In Germany, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG)) makes recommendations for reimbursement prices of drugs based on an evaluation of the relationship between incremental costs and effects. In 2009, the German government (“Koalitionsvertrag”) announced its intention to evaluate the transparency and acceptability of IQWiG's work. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a survey of a sample of the German population: to check the acceptance of the IQWiG's decision rule compared to a decision rule used in countries such as England and Wales; and to test if the way the IQWiG's decision rule is presented affects its acceptance. Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was developed eliciting acceptability of IQWiG's decision rule and a single cost-effectiveness threshold applying to all diseases (i.e. absolute rule (AR)). To check for a framing effect IQWiG's decision rule was presented in two ways. One version presented it, based on IQWiG's official publication, as a constant ratio between incremental costs and effects within a therapeutic area (proportional rule (PR), Version 1). The other version presented it in terms of a proportional relationship between costs and effects within a therapeutic area (PR, Version 2). χ 2 goodness of fit test and two-proportion z -test tested for differences between acceptance rates of decision rules. Findings – A sample of 108 persons from the general public (average age: 41 years, 48 per cent male) filled out the questionnaire. Acceptance rates for AR, PR Version 1, and PR Version 2 were 33, 48, and 39 per cent, respectively. Direct comparisons show that acceptance of PR Version 1 was significantly higher than acceptance of AR ( p =0.026) and that there was a clear trend towards higher acceptance of PR Version 1 compared to Version 2 ( p =0.22). The difference between PR Version 2 and AR was not significant ( p =0.32). Research limitations/implications – In our study, different presentations of the IQWiG decision rule did not significantly alter its acceptance, although there was a clear trend towards accepting IQWiG's official version. Furthermore, the acceptance of the IQWiG's official version was significantly higher than AR. Because of the relevance of the research question we recommend additional research for confirmation and explanation of the choices made. Originality/value – This is one of the few studies on the impact of framing on allocation preferences in health care.