Institutional Profiles and the Likelihood of Unfavorable Submissions in Public Consultations on Breast Cancer Drugs in Brazil’s Supplementary Health System
Author(s)
Luiza Osuna Falavigna, BSc, Larissa Faia, BSc, Franciele Iachecen, MASc, Iara Muller Bernz, PharmD, Cristhiane Gennaro Simões, MBA.
IQVIA Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil.
IQVIA Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil.
OBJECTIVES: Incorporating social participation into health technology assessment (HTA) processes is essential for informed public health decision-making. However, the dynamics of stakeholder engagement in public consultations, particularly in the oncology field, remain insufficiently explored. This study analyzed how institutional profiles are associated with the likelihood of submitting unfavorable opinions during public consultations on oncology drugs.
METHODS: We analyzed 1,295 contributions submitted to recent public consultations regarding breast cancer technologies. Each submission was classified as either favorable or unfavorable and grouped into five institutional categories: Industry/Companies; Academic and Healthcare Institutions; Government Agencies and Professional Councils; Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers; and Healthcare Professionals. A weighted logistic regression was performed using "Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers" as the reference group. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Health insurance providers (n = 10) were excluded due to complete separation, as all responses were unfavorable, which precluded model estimation.
RESULTS: The Industry/Companies group showed significantly lower odds of submitting unfavorable opinions compared to Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.20-0.95; p = 0.050), suggesting a more favorable stance toward technology adoption. In contrast, Academic and Healthcare Institutions had significantly higher odds of unfavorable responses (OR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.17-5.26; p = 0.015), indicating a more critical and technical perspective. Government Agencies and Professional Councils (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.61-1.39; p = 0.717) and Healthcare Professionals (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18; p = 0.364) showed no statistically significant differences compared to the reference group.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients and caregivers, industry representatives were less likely to oppose incorporation, while academic and healthcare institutions were more critical. These findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholder profiles when interpretating public input in HTA processes.
METHODS: We analyzed 1,295 contributions submitted to recent public consultations regarding breast cancer technologies. Each submission was classified as either favorable or unfavorable and grouped into five institutional categories: Industry/Companies; Academic and Healthcare Institutions; Government Agencies and Professional Councils; Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers; and Healthcare Professionals. A weighted logistic regression was performed using "Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers" as the reference group. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Health insurance providers (n = 10) were excluded due to complete separation, as all responses were unfavorable, which precluded model estimation.
RESULTS: The Industry/Companies group showed significantly lower odds of submitting unfavorable opinions compared to Patients, Family Members, or Caregivers (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.20-0.95; p = 0.050), suggesting a more favorable stance toward technology adoption. In contrast, Academic and Healthcare Institutions had significantly higher odds of unfavorable responses (OR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.17-5.26; p = 0.015), indicating a more critical and technical perspective. Government Agencies and Professional Councils (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.61-1.39; p = 0.717) and Healthcare Professionals (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18; p = 0.364) showed no statistically significant differences compared to the reference group.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients and caregivers, industry representatives were less likely to oppose incorporation, while academic and healthcare institutions were more critical. These findings highlight the importance of considering stakeholder profiles when interpretating public input in HTA processes.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA204
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology