Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: A qualitative case study and evaluation

Health Policy

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 295-303

  Martin, Douglas K ^a,b   Hollenberg, Daniel ^a   MacRae, Sue ^a   Madden, Shannon ^a   Singer, Peter ^a,c,d  

^a at the University of Toronto Wagner is also a faculty member of the Canadian Medical Associations' Physician Management Institute   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accountability for reasonableness; Case study; Hospital drug formulary; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG FORMULARY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL CARE; MANAGER; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRESCRIPTION;

EID: 0242467895     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00063-0     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Mucklow J.C. How can we afford costly medicine's. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London. 34:(2):2000;124-127.
2. Foy R., So J., Rous E., Scarffe H. Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritizing new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold. British Medical Journal. 318:1999;456-491.
3. Sloan F.A., Whetten-Goldstein K., Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost-containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Social Science and Medicine. 45:(4):1997;523-533.
4. Luce B.R., Brown R.E. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations and third-party payers in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 11:1995;79.
5. Pearce M.J., Begg E.J. Hospital drug therapy cost containment through a preferred medicines list and drug utilization review system. New Zealand Medical Journal. 107:1994;101.
6. Segal R., Oh T., Ben-Joseph R., Russell W.L. A pharmacoeconomic analysis of IV H2-receptor antagonist use in 40 hospitals. Hospital Formulary. 29:1994;379.
7. Barriere S.L. Controversies in antimicrobial therapy: formulary decisions on third-generation cephalosporins. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. 43:1986;625-629.
8. Detsky A. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: a draft document for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 3:(5):1993;354-361.
9. PausJenssen A.M., Singer P.A., Detsky A.S. How a formulary committee makes listing decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 21:(4):2003;285-294.
10. Singer P.A., Martin D.K., Giacomini M., Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. British Medical Journal. 321:2000;1316-1318.
11. Martin D.K., Pater J.L., Singer P.A. Priority setting decisions for new cancer drugs: what rationales are used. The Lancet. 358:2001;1676-1681.
12. Daniels N., Sabin J.E. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 26:1997;303-350.
13. 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.
14. Yin R.K. Case study research: design and methods. 1994;Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
15. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures of developing grounded theory. 1998;55-242 Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
16. Altheide D.L., Johnson J.M. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. Handbook of qualitative research. 1994;485-499 Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
17. Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal. 320:2000;50-52.
18. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. Naturalistic inquiry. 1985;Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
19. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal. 321:2000;1300-1301.
20. Daniels N., Sabin J.E. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources. 2002;Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
21. Daniels N., Sabin J.E. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for Insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 26:(4):1997;303-502.
22. Cohen J. Pluralism and proceduralism. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 69:1994;589-618.
23. Rawls J. Political liberalism. 1993;Columbia University Press, New York.
24. Ham C. Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the Child B case. British Medical Journal. 319:1999;1258-1261.
25. Ham C., McIver S. Contested decisions: priority setting in the NHS. 2000;King's Fund Publishing, London, UK.
26. Norheim O. Procedures for priority setting and mechanisms of appeal in the Norwegian health care system. Presentation at the third international conference on priorities in health. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
27. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., Singer P.A. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 61:2002;279-290.
28. Daniels, N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 105.
29. Russel L.B., Gold M.R., Siegel J.E., Daniels N., Weinstein M.C. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association. 276:1996;1172-1177.
30. "Drugs watchdog calls in patient panel" BBC news. 24 November 2001 http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1672000/1672871.stm.
31. Martin D.K., Abelson J., Singer P.A. Participation in health care priority setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services, Policy and Research. 7:2002;222-229.
32. Malterud K. The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers. The Lancet. 358:2001;397-400.