Literature DB >> 17678511

Public views on priority setting for high cost medications in public hospitals in Australia.

Gisselle Gallego1, Susan J Taylor, Paul McNeill, Jo-anne E Brien.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To gather information about views of members of the general public about access to High Cost Medications (HCMs) in public hospitals.
METHODS: A structured questionnaire was administered to members of the general public. Individuals were approached in train stations, shopping centres and different venues in the Sydney metropolitan area. People were eligible to answer the survey if they were: over 18 years of age, Australian permanent residents and able to complete the questionnaire in English.
RESULTS: Two hundred people completed the survey. Of these 56% were females, 47% were married, 84% spoke English at home, 88% were working either full-time or part-time, 61% had a university degree, 27% had a household annual income greater than 100,000 dollars and 68% had private health insurance. Participants considered factors such as treatment outcomes, quality of life and current health status when determining who should have access to HCMs. Participants wanted resources to be allocated to provide the 'greatest benefit to the greatest number of people'. Almost half the respondents did not want direct involvement in decision-making, however, 38% did.
CONCLUSIONS: The results offered support for indirect involvement through the development of a process to involve community members in discussion on policy on the provision of treatment and services within health-care institutions and specifically, to seek the views of members of the public on the provision of HCMs and expensive services within public hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17678511      PMCID: PMC5060397          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00439.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  28 in total

Review 1.  Quality use of medicines in the community: the Australian experience.

Authors:  A J Smith; P McGettigan
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey.

Authors:  E Mossialos; D King
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Sailing without radar: an excursion in resource allocation.

Authors:  K Alexander; N Hicks
Journal:  Aust Health Rev       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia.

Authors:  V Wiseman; G Mooney; G Berry; K C Tang
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Desperately seeking solutions: rationing dilemmas in health care.

Authors:  D J Hunter
Journal:  Aust Health Rev       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.990

6.  Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs.

Authors:  Wayne D Hall; Robyn Ward; Winston S Liauw; Christine Y Lu; Jo-anne E Brien
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2005-06-20       Impact factor: 7.738

7.  The rationing debate. Rationing health care by age.

Authors:  A Williams; J G Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-03-15

8.  Bridging the gap between public expectations and public willingness to pay.

Authors:  C H Smee
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Pharmaceuticals and the consumer movement: the ambivalences of 'patient power'.

Authors:  Hans Lofgren
Journal:  Aust Health Rev       Date:  2004-11-08       Impact factor: 1.990

10.  Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues.

Authors:  E Nord; J Richardson; A Street; H Kuhse; P Singer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.

Authors:  Tatjana E MacLeod; Anthony H Harris; Ajay Mahal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Israeli lay persons' views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Perla Werner
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  The relevance of personal characteristics in allocating health care resources-controversial preferences of laypersons with different educational backgrounds.

Authors:  Jeannette Winkelhage; Adele Diederich
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Jeannette Winkelhage; Norman Wirsik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Public engagement in setting healthcare priorities: a ranking exercise in Cyprus.

Authors:  Antonis Farmakas; Mamas Theodorou; Petros Galanis; Georgios Karayiannis; Stefanos Ghobrial; Nikos Polyzos; Evridiki Papastavrou; Eirini Agapidaki; Kyriakos Souliotis
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2017-08-09

6.  Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia.

Authors:  Lesley Chim; Glenn Salkeld; Patrick Kelly; Wendy Lipworth; Dyfrig A Hughes; Martin R Stockler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions.

Authors:  Irina Cleemput; Stephan Devriese; Laurence Kohn; Carl Devos; Janine van Til; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Carine van de Voorde
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-09-25

8.  Eliciting the public preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy in Iran: a discrete choice experiment study.

Authors:  Mansoor Delpasand; Alireza Olyaaeemanesh; Ebrahim Jaafaripooyan; Akbar Abdollahiasl; Majid Davari; Ali Kazemi Karyani
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2021-07-13

9.  Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

Authors:  Jana Rogge; Bernhard Kittel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Prospective Intention-Based Lifestyle Contracts: mHealth Technology and Responsibility in Healthcare.

Authors:  Emily Feng-Gu; Jim Everett; Rebecca C H Brown; Hannah Maslen; Justin Oakley; Julian Savulescu
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2021-01-11
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.