Decision-making in priority setting for medicines-A review of empirical studies

Health Policy

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-9

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

^a NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Decision making; Drug formulary; Pharmaceuticals; Priority setting; Resource allocation

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DRUG COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HOSPITAL CARE; MEDLINE; OUTPATIENT CARE; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW;

DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FORMULARIES; HEALTH PRIORITIES; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 39749178478     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.09.007     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Rascati K.L. Survey of formulary system policies and procedures. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 49 (1992) 100-103
2. Weekes L.M., and Brooks C. Drug and Therapeutics Committees in Australia: expected and actual performance. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 42 (1996) 551-557
3. Thürmann P.A., Harder S., and Steioff A. Structure and activities of hospital drug committees in Germany. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 52 (1997) 429-435
4. Fijn R., De Jong-Van den Berg L., and Brouwers R. Rational pharmacotherapy in The Netherlands: formulary management in Dutch hospitals. Pharmacy World and Science 21 (1999) 74-79
5. Holm S. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. British Medical Journal 317 (1998) 1000-1002
6. Ham C., and 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
7. Ham C., and Coulter A. International experience of rationing. In: Ham C., and Robert G. (Eds). Reasonable rationing. International experience of priority setting in health (2003), Open University Press, CareBerkshire 4-15
8. Martin D., and Singer P. A strategy to improve priority setting in health care institutions. Health Care Analysis 11 (2003) 59-68
9. PausJenssen A., Singer P.A., and Detsky A. Ontario's Formulary Committee. How recommendations are made. Pharmacoeconomics 21 (2003) 285-294
10. Martin D.K., Pater J.L., and Singer P.A. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. Lancet 358 (2001) 1676-1681
11. Singer P.A., Martin D.K., Giacomini M., and Purdy L. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 321 (2000) 1316-1318
12. Martin D., Abelson J., and Singer P. Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 7 (2002) 222-229
13. Le Pen C., Priol G., and 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 4 (2003) 30-36
14. Vuorenkoski L., Toiviainen H., and Hemminki E. Drug reimbursement in Finland-a case of explicit prioritising in special categories. Health Policy 66 (2003) 169-177
15. Martin D.K., Hollenberg D., MacRae S., Madden S., and Singer P. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 66 (2003) 295-303
16. Daniels N., and Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1997) 303-350
17. Jenkings K.N., and Barber N. What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision making?. Social Science and Medicine 58 (2004) 1757-1766
18. Mitton C.R., McMahon M., Morgan S., and Gibson J. Centralized drug review processes: are they fair?. Social Science and Medicine 63 (2006) 200-211
19. Segal R., and Pathak D.S. Formulary decision making: identifying factors that influence P&T committee drug evaluations. Hospital Formulary 23 (1988) 174-178
20. West R., Borden E.K., Collet J.P., Rawson N.S., and Tonks R.S. "Cost-effectiveness" estimates result in flawed decision-making in listing drugs for reimbursement. Canadian Journal of Public Health. Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique 93 (2002) 421-425
21. Shalansky S.J., Virk R., Ackman M., Jackevicius C., Kertland H., Tsuyuki R., et al. Access to new cardiovascular therapies in Canadian hospitals: a national survey of the formulary process. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology 19 (2003) 173-179
22. Taylor R.S., Drummond M.F., Salkeld G., and Sullivan S.D. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. British Medical Journal 329 (2004) 972-975
23. Kanavos P., Trueman P., and Bosilevac A. Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, The Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16 (2000) 1179-1192
24. Maynard A., and Cookson R. Money or your life? The health-wealth trade-off in pharmaceutical regulation. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 6 (2001) 186-189
25. George B., Harris A., and Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991-1996). Pharmacoeconomics 19 (2001) 1103-1109
26. Devlin N., and Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Economics 12 (2004) 437-452
27. Grabowski H., and Mullins C. Pharmacy benefit management, cost-effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions. Social Science and Medicine 45 (1997) 535-544
28. Sloan F., Whetten-Goldstein K., and Wilson A. Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis. Social Science and Medicine 45 (1997) 523-533
29. Hill S., Mitchell A., and Henry D. Problems with the interpretation of pharmaceuticals. A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Journal of American Medical Association 283 (2000) 2116-2121
30. Anis A.H., Rahman T., and Schechter M.T. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 13 (1998) 119-126
31. Wirtz V., Cribb A., and Barber N. Reimbursement decisions in health policy-extending our understanding of the elements of decision-making. Health Policy 73 (2005) 330-338
32. Harvey K. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2003-2004. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy (2005) 2
33. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 49 (1999) 45-61
34. Donovan J., and Coast J. Public participation in priority setting: commitment or illusion?. In: Coast J., Donovan J., and Frankel S. (Eds). Priority setting: the health care debate (1996), Wiley, Chichester 203-234
35. Doyal L. Public participation and the moral quality of healthcare rationing. Quality in Health Care 7 (1998) 98-102