Drug reimbursement in Finland - A case of explicit prioritising in special categories

Health Policy

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 169-177

  Vuorenkoski, Lauri ^a   Toiviainen, Hanna ^a   Hemminki, Elina ^a  

^a NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Decision making; Drug reimbursement; Priority setting; Stakeholders' views

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; COMPETITION; DECISION MAKING; DRUG COST; FINLAND; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NORMAL HUMAN; POLITICAL SYSTEM; REIMBURSEMENT;

EID: 0142227051     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00042-3     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Rinta S. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in Finland. European Journal of Health Economics (HEPAC). 2:2001;128-135.
2. Burton S. An ethicist's evaluation of drug coverage. Drug Benefit Trends. 12:2000;58-59.
3. Bayat A. Science, medicine, and the future. Bioinformatics. British Medical Journal. 324:2002;1018-1022.
4. Moynihan R., Heath I., Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. British Medical Journal. 324:2002;886-890.
5. Moynihan R., Smith R. Too much medicine? Almost certainly. British Medical Journal. 324:2002;859-860.
6. Wold-Olsen P. Why is there no Single Market for Medicines? Kangaroo Group Newsletter. 1999.
7. Doyal L. Rationing within the NHS should be explicit. The case for. British Medical Journal. 314:1997;1114-1118.
8. Ham C., Coulter A. Explicit and implicit rationing: taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 6:2001;163-169.
9. Rissanen P., Häkkinen U. Priority-setting in Finnish healthcare. Health Policy. 50:1999;143-153.
10. Brugha R., Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and Planning. 15:2000;239-246.
11. Varvasovszky Z., Brugha R. A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning. 15:2000;338-345.
12. Walt G. Health policy: an introduction to process and power. 1994;Witwaterstrand University Press, Johannesburg.
13. Gardner H., Barraclough S. The policy process. Gardner H. Health policy. Development, implementation and evaluation in Australia. 1992;3-28 Churchill Livingstone, Melbourne.
14. Leger W.-B. Change-promoting research for health services. 1999;Open University Press, Buckingham.
15. Rennie D. Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical trials. Journal of American Medical Association. 282:1999;1766-1768.
16. Hemminki E., Bomann-Larsen P. Drug reimbursement in four Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. 9:1981;1-10.
17. Kvale S. InterViews. 1996;Thousand Oaks, Sage.
18. Ritchie J., Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Bryman A., Burgess R. Analyzing qualitative data. 1994;173-194 Routledge, London.
19. Coast J. Who wants to know if their care is rationed? Views of citizens and service informants. Health Expectations. 4:2001;243-252.
20. Holm S. The second phase of priority setting: goodbye to the simple solutions. British Medical Journal. 317:1998;1000-1002.
21. Rutten F., van der Linden J.-W. Integration of economic appraisal and health care policy in a health insurance system; the Dutch case. Social Science and Medicine. 38:1994;1609-1614.
22. Morgan S., Barer M., Evans R. Health economists meet the fourth tempter: drug dependency and scientific discourse. Health Economics. 9:2000;659-667.
23. Hill S., Mitchell A., Henry D. Problems with the interpretation of pharmaceuticals. A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. Journal of American Medical Association. 283:2000;2116-2121.
24. Daniels N., Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 26:1997;303-350.
25. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizen juries. Health Policy. 49:1999;45-61.
26. Donovan J., Coast J. Public participation in priority setting: commitment or illusion? Coast J., Donovan J. Priority setting: the health care debate. 1996;203-234 Wiley, Chichester.
27. Doyal L. Public participation and the moral quality of health care rationing. Quality in Health Care. 7:1998;98-102.
28. Rosen P., Karlberg I. Opinion of Swedish citizens, health-care politicians, administrators and doctors on rationing and health care financing. Health Expectations. 5:2002;148-155.
29. Hemminki E., Pesonen T. An inquiry into associations between leading physicians and the drug industry in Finland. Social Science and Medicine. 11:1977;501-506.
30. Lenzer J. Alteplase for stroke: money and optimistic claims buttress the 'brain attack' campaign. British Medical Journal. 324:2002;723-726.
31. Mintzes B. Blurring the boundaries. New trends in drug promotion. 1998;HAI-Europe, Amsterdam.
32. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., Singer P.A. Fairness, accountability for reasonablesness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 61:2002;279-290.