Literature DB >> 25267072

Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment.

Jennifer A Whitty1, Peter Littlejohns2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia. APPROACH: The processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting.
FINDINGS: Transparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens' Jury.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Australia; Health priority setting; Health technology assessment; Resource allocation; Social values

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25267072     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Policy        ISSN: 0168-8510            Impact factor:   2.980


  13 in total

1.  Australian adolescent population norms for the child health utility index 9D-results from the young minds matter survey.

Authors:  Long Khanh-Dao Le; Scott Richards-Jones; Mary Lou Chatterton; Lidia Engel; David Lawrence; Chris Stevenson; Genevieve Pepin; Julie Ratcliffe; Michael Sawyer; Cathrine Mihalopoulos
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.

Authors:  Bettina M Zimmermann; Johanna Eichinger; Matthias R Baumgartner
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.123

3.  Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England.

Authors:  Katharina Kieslich; Peter Littlejohns
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul Harris; Rachael Krinks; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  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

6.  Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea.

Authors:  Eun-Young Bae; Hui Jeong Kim; Hye-Jae Lee; Junho Jang; Seung Min Lee; Yunkyung Jung; Nari Yoon; Tae Kyung Kim; Kookhee Kim; Bong-Min Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Creating sustainable health care systems.

Authors:  Peter Littlejohns; Katharina Kieslich; Albert Weale; Emma Tumilty; Georgina Richardson; Tim Stokes; Robin Gauld; Paul Scuffham
Journal:  J Health Organ Manag       Date:  2018-11-22

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.  Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public.

Authors:  Sally Wortley; Allison Tong; Kirsten Howard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  The values and ethical commitments of doctors engaging in macroallocation: a qualitative and evaluative analysis.

Authors:  Siun Gallagher; Miles Little; Claire Hooker
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.