##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 155 No. 9 (2025)

Healthcare resource allocation for rare diseases: an exploratory survey of Swiss citizens’ preferences

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:4243
Published
18.09.2025

Summary

OBJECTIVE: This study explores how Swiss citizens prioritise healthcare resource allocation for rare diseases, considering variables such as disease rarity, treatment cost, patient age and treatment outcomes.

METHODS: We conducted an exploratory survey using visual discrete-choice vignettes embedded in scenario cards. Each card depicted a fictional patient case based on real-world disease attributes. A total of 157 unique real-world scenarios were designed by combining variables such as rarity, age group, cost and impact on quality of life. Participants were asked whether they would recommend treatment funding for each scenario.

RESULTS: A total of 375 participant responses were analysed. Our findings reveal that the probability of a positive decision to treat was influenced more by treatment effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes than by disease rarity or cost.

CONCLUSION: The results suggest that while high treatment costs do pose challenges, they are often secondary to the perceived benefits of treatment; Swiss citizens prioritise treatment effectiveness and quality-of-life improvements over rarity or treatment cost when considering funding decisions

References

  1. 1. The Lancet Neurology. Rare neurological diseases: a united approach is needed. Lancet Neurol. 2011 Feb;10(2):109. 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70001-1
  2. 2. Garrison S, Kennedy A, Manetto N, Pariser AR, Rutter JL, Yang G. The Economic Burden Of Rare Diseases: Quantifying The Sizeable Collective Burden And Offering Solutions. Health Aff Forefr. doi: 10.1377/forefront.20220128.987667
  3. 3. Hughes D. Rationing of drugs for rare diseases. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(4):315–6. 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00001
  4. 4. Kacetl J, Marešová P, Maskuriy R, Selamat A. Ethical Questions Linked to Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs - A Systematic Review. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020 Oct;13:2125–48. 10.2147/RMHP.S260641
  5. 5. Pearson C, Schapiro L, Pearson SD. The next generation of rare disease drug policy: ensuring both innovation and affordability. J Comp Eff Res. 2022 Oct;11(14):999–1010. 10.2217/cer-2022-0120
  6. 6. Juth N; Sake of Justice. For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases? Health Care Anal. 2017 Mar;25(1):1–20. 10.1007/s10728-014-0284-5
  7. 7. Delaye J, Cacciatore P, Kole A. Valuing the “Burden” and Impact of Rare Diseases: A Scoping Review. Front Pharmacol. 2022 Jun;13:914338. 10.3389/fphar.2022.914338
  8. 8. Cardinali P, Migliorini L, Rania N. The Caregiving Experiences of Fathers and Mothers of Children With Rare Diseases in Italy: Challenges and Social Support Perceptions. Front Psychol. 2019 Aug;10:1780. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01780
  9. 9. Nakada H, Watanabe S, Takashima K, Suzuki S, Kawamura Y, Takai Y, et al. General public’s understanding of rare diseases and their opinions on medical resource allocation in Japan: a cross-sectional study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023 Jun;18(1):143. 10.1186/s13023-023-02762-x
  10. 10. Eurordis (Rare diseases Europe). Rare diseases: understanding this public health priority. 2005. Available from: https://www.eurordis.org/publications/rare-diseases-understanding-this-public-health-priority/
  11. 11. Bentley JP, Larson LN, Brenton MA. Values, participatory democracy, and healthcare resource allocation: an application to a campus community. J Am Coll Health. 1995 Mar;43(5):205–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.1995.9940478
  12. 12. Schoch-Spana M, Brunson EK, Gwon H, Regenberg A, Toner ES, Daugherty-Biddison EL. Influence of Community and Culture in the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in a Pandemic Situation: Deliberative Democracy Study. J Particip Med. 2020 Mar;12(1):e18272. 10.2196/18272
  13. 13. Spitale G, Merten S, Jafflin K, Schwind B, Kaiser-Grolimund A, Biller-Andorno N. A Novel Risk and Crisis Communication Platform to Bridge the Gap Between Policy Makers and the Public in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis (PubliCo): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021 Nov;10(11):e33653. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/33653
  14. 14. Prinz JJ. The emotional construction of morals. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. xi, 334. ISBN:978-0-19-928301-9
  15. 15. Harman G. Moral Relativism Defended. Philos Rev. 1975;84(1):3–22. 10.2307/2184078
  16. 16. National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics (NCE). Drug prices. Considerations on the equitable management of expensive new medicines. Opinion no. 35/2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.nek-cne.admin.ch/inhalte/Themen/Stellungnahmen/en/NEK-stellungnahme-medikamentenpreise-EN-rz.pdf
  17. 17. Bourke SM, Plumpton CO, Hughes DA. Societal Preferences for Funding Orphan Drugs in the United Kingdom: An Application of Person Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods. Value Health. 2018 May;21(5):538–46. 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.026
  18. 18. Si. Healthcare in Sweden. sweden.se. 2024. Available from: https://sweden.se/life/society/healthcare-in-sweden
  19. 19. Wiss J, Levin LA, Andersson D, Tinghög G. Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making. Med Decis Making. 2017 Jul;37(5):567–76. 10.1177/0272989X17691744
  20. 20. Desser A S, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen J A, Grepperud S, Kristiansen I S. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4715
  21. 21. Goldin J, Reck DH. Framing Effects in Survey Research: Consistency-Adjusted Estimators. SSRN Electron J. 2014; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2530393
  22. 22. Spitale G, Germani F. ITINERARE - A Swiss Perspective on Rare Disease Resource Allocation. OSF. 2025. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/P4H8U
  23. 23. Center for Rare Diseases Zurich. University Hospital Zurich (USZ). Available from: https://www.usz.ch/en/department/center-for-rare-diseases-zurich/