Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T22:36:37.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PD232 A New Process For Patients And Caregivers To Suggest Health Technologies For Funding Consideration In Singapore

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2025

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

In Singapore, health technologies were previously identified for funding consideration through horizon scanning or annual applications from clinicians, before being prioritized by the Ministry of Health advisory committees for evaluation by the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). This poster describes a new process co-developed with local patient organizations to enable patients and caregivers to suggest health technologies for evaluation.

Methods

An application form was developed in plain language for patients and caregivers which requested the name of the health technology and its formulation, the medical condition it is used for, the perceived benefits and disadvantages, and the reasons why it should be funded. A factsheet explaining the selection process was codeveloped with patients, published online, and sent electronically with the application form in October 2023 to all local patient organizations, alongside the open application call for clinicians. Applications were accepted until January 2024 and then collated for prioritization in line with predefined selection criteria. All patients were notified of the outcome of their application.

Results

Fifty applications were received from patients during the first two months of the open call compared to 75 from clinicians. Most of the patient applications (66%) requested drugs for treating asthma or respiratory conditions. Drugs requested by clinicians generally differed from those requested by patients except for 5 topics, suggesting that patients may perceive clinical need differently. Most patient applicants had used the requested drugs before and considered they were effective and convenient, but unaffordable. Health technologies were more likely to be prioritized for evaluation when their benefits were plausible and supported by evidence, and they could fill an unmet clinical need for patients.

Conclusions

The process will be updated in line with feedback to encourage continued patient participation annually. Enabling patients and caregivers to suggest health technologies for evaluation provides ACE with a better understanding of their needs, preferences, lived experiences, and expectations, and ensures that subsequent funding recommendations informed by ACE’s evaluations address therapeutic gaps and improve treatment affordability and patient outcomes.

Type
Poster Presentations (online)
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press