Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGolan, Ofraen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Paulen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorKaplan, Gioraen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorTal, Ornaen_NZ
dc.date.available2011-04-07T03:06:05Z
dc.date.copyright2010-07-01en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationGolan, O., Hansen, P., Kaplan, G., & Tal, O. (2010). Health Technology Prioritisation: Which criteria for prioritising new technologies, and what are their relative weights? (Economics Discussion Papers Series No. 1006). Department of Economics, University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/1014en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/1014
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To review the criteria and 'other' considerations used internationally for prioritising new health technologies, and to demonstrate a conjoint-analysis methodology for deriving relative weights for the criteria. Methods: We searched the literature for criteria and other considerations used internationally for prioritising new technologies. For a set of criteria related to the 'benefits' from technologies, we used a conjoint-analysis survey with a convenience sample of 74 participants to derive their weights. Results: Covering 11 countries and the US state of Oregon, we distinguished three main groups of criteria: (a) Need, appropriateness and clinical benefits; (b) Efficiency (including cost-effectiveness); and (c) Equality, solidarity and other ethical or social values. For several countries, the quality of the clinical and economic evidence and factors related to strategic issues and procedural justice respectively are also considered. The criteria in the conjoint-analysis survey and their derived weights are: 'Lives saved' = 0.343, 'Life-prolongation benefits' = 0.243, 'Quality-of-life gains' = 0.217, a criterion representing the availability of alternative treatments = 0.107, and 'Other important social / ethical benefits' = 0.087. Conclusions: The criteria represented a pluralistic combination of needs-based, maximising and egalitarian principles, and we demonstrated a methodology for deriving their weights based on a conjoint-analysis survey.en_NZ
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherDepartment of Economics, University of Otagoen_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEconomics Discussion Papers Seriesen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://www.business.otago.ac.nz/econ/research/discussionpapers/index.htmlen_NZ
dc.subjectHealthen_NZ
dc.subjectPrioritiesen_NZ
dc.subjectTechnology Assessmenten_NZ
dc.subject.lcshHB Economic Theoryen_NZ
dc.titleHealth Technology Prioritisation: Which criteria for prioritising new technologies, and what are their relative weights?en_NZ
dc.typeDiscussion Paperen_NZ
dc.description.versionPublisheden_NZ
otago.bitstream.pages20en_NZ
otago.date.accession2010-10-05 20:33:53en_NZ
otago.schoolDepartment of Economicsen_NZ
otago.openaccessOpen
otago.place.publicationDunedin, New Zealanden_NZ
dc.identifier.eprints932en_NZ
otago.school.eprintsEconomicsen_NZ
dc.description.referencesKenny N, Joffres C. An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting. Health Care Analysis 2008;16:145-160. Sabik LM, Lie RK. Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health 2008;7:4. Holm S. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second stage of priority setting in health care. British Medical Journal 1998;317:1000-1007. Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. The Lancet 2001;358:1676-1681. Singer PA, Mapa J. Ethics of resource allocation: dimensions for healthcare executives. Hospital Quarterly 1998;1:29-31. Hoedemaekers R, Dekkers W. Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Analysis 2003;11:325-343. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Services Research 2009;9:43. Culyer A. Need – is a consensus possible? Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:77-80. Cookson R, Dolan P. Principles of justice in health care rationing. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:323-329. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997;26:303-350. Brock D. Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health resources. In: Khushf G, editor. Handbook of bioethics. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004, pp. 353-380. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1973. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Amsterdam: Springer. 2008. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2009;15:87-107. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. Australia NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethical considerations relating to health care resource allocation decisions, www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e24.pdf; 2010 [accessed 6 May 2010]. PausJenssen A, Singer PA, Detsky A. Ontario’s Formulary Committee. How recommendations are made. PharmacoEconomics 2003;21:285-294. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 2000;321:1316-1318. Martin D, Abelson J, Singer P. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 2002;7:222-229. Ham C, Robert G, editors. Reasonable rationing – international experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead, Philadelphia: Open University Press; 2003. The Danish Council of Ethics. Priority-setting in the health service, http://etiskraad.synkron.com/graphics/03_udgivelser/publikationer/ENG002.HTM#7.2; 1997 [accessed 6 May 2010]. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Drug reimbursement in Finland – a case of explicit prioritising in special categories. Health Policy 2003;66:169-177. Vuorenkoski L, Toiviainen H, Hemminki E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines – a review of empirical studies. Health Policy 2008; 86:1-9. Le Pen C, Priol G, Lilliu H. What criteria for pharmaceuticals reimbursement? An empirical analysis of the evaluation of “medical service rendered” by reimbursable drugs in France. European Journal of Health Economics 2003;4:30-36. Shani S, Siebzehner MI, Luxenburg O, Shemer J. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level – the Israeli experience. Health Policy 2000;54:169-185. PHARMAC. Operating policies and procedures of the pharmaceutical management agency ("PHARMAC"), www.pharmac.govt.nz/2005/12/22/231205.pdf; 2006, pp. 5-6 [accessed 6 May 2010]. Calltorp J. Priority setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway. Health Policy 1999;50:1-22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgments. principles for the development of NICE guidance, www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf; 2008 [accessed 6 May 2010]. Quinn KP. Viewing health care as a common good: looking beyond political liberalism. Southern California Law Review 2000;73:277-375. Liss P-E. The significance of the goal of health care for the setting of priorities. Health Care Analysis 2003;11:161-169. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: what are we talking about? Value in Health 2009;12(Suppl. 2):S6-7. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Assessing and improving value in cancer care: workshop summary. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2009, p. 3 and ch. 4. Shah KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 2009;93:77-84. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 2004;328:1490. Saarni S, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Luhmann D, Makela M, Velasco-Garrido M, Autti-Ramo I. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008;86:617-623. Booth CM, Dranitsaris G, Gainford MC, Berry S, Fralick M, Fralick J, Sue J, Clemons M. External influences and priority-setting for anti-cancer agents: a case study of media coverage in adjuvant trastuzumab for breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2007;7:110. Wirtz V, Cribb A, Barber N. Reimbursement decisions in health policy – extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy 2005;73:330-338.en_NZ
otago.relation.number1006en_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record