Reimbursement decisions in health policy--extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making

Previous theoretical and empirical work on health policy decisions about reimbursement focuses on specific rationales such as effectiveness, economic considerations and equal access for equal needs. As reimbursement decisions take place in a social and political context we propose that the analysis of decision-making should incorporate factors, which go beyond those commonly discussed. As an example we chose three health technologies (sildenafil, rivastigmine and statins) to investigate how decisions about reimbursement of medicines are made in the United Kingdom National Health Service and what factors influence these decisions. From face-to-face, in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 20 regional and national policy makers and stakeholders we identified two dimensions of decision-making, which extend beyond the rationales conventionally cited. The first dimension relates to the role of 'subjectivity' or 'the personal' in the decisions, including personal experiences of the condition and excitement about the novelty or potential benefit of the technology-these factors affect what counts as evidence, or how evidence is interpreted, in practice. The second dimension relates to the social and political function of decision-making and broadens what counts as the relevant ends of decision-making to include such things as maintaining relationships, avoiding organisational burden, generating politically and legally defensible decisions and demonstrating the willingness to care. More importantly, we will argue that these factors should not be treated as contaminants of an otherwise rational decision-making. On the contrary we suggest that they seem relevant, reasonable and also of substantial importance in considering in decision-making. Complementing the analysis of decision-making about reimbursement by incorporating these factors could increase our understanding and potentially improve decision-making.