Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding

Health Policy

Volumn 86, Issue 2-3, 2008, Pages 381-390

  Sinclair, Shane ^a   Hagen, Neil A ^a   Chambers, Carole ^b   Manns, Braden ^c   Simon, Anita ^d   Browman, George P ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b TOM BAKER CANCER CENTRE   (Canada)

^c Division of Nephrology   (Canada)

^d Alberta Cancer Board   (Canada)

^e BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Accountability for reasonableness; Decision makers views; Drug formulary; Ethics; Priority setting; Resource allocation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG FORMULARY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; QUALITY OF LIFE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; FOCUS GROUPS; FORMULARIES; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; POLICY MAKING;

EID: 40949088932     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. British Medical Journal 321 (2000) 1300-1301
2. 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
3. Daniels N., and Sabin J. Ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 17 (1998) 50-64
4. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., Singer P.A., and Fairness. accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 61 (2002) 279-290
5. Browman G., Manns B., Hagen N., Chambers C., Simon A., and Sinclair S. 6-STEPPPs: a modular tool to facilitate fair decisions for public funding of new cancer drugs. Journal of Oncology Practice 4 1 (2008) 2-7
6. Joint Oncology Drug Review. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/drugs/oncology_rev iew.html. 2007. Ref Type: Report.
7. Foy R., So J., Rouse E., and Scarffe H. Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritzing new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold. British Medical Journal 318 (1999) 456-459
8. Martin D.K., Pater J.L., and Singer P.A. Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study. The Lancet 358 (2001) 1676-1681
9. Gibson J., Mitton C., Martin D., and Singer P. Ethics and economics: does programme budgeting and marginal analysis contribute to fair priority setting?. Journal of Health Service Research and Policy 11 (2006) 32-37
10. Mielke J., Martin D., and Singer P.A. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study. Critical Care Medicine 31 (2003) 2764-2768
11. Sabin J. Fairness as a problem of love and the heart: a clinician's perspective on priority setting. British Medical Journal 317 (1998) 1002-1008
12. Gordon T., Holland J., and Lahelma E. Ethnographic Research in Educational Settings. In: Atkinson P., Coffey A., Delamont S., Lofland J., and Lofland L. (Eds). Handbook of ethnography (2001), Sage, London 188-203
13. Germain C. Ethnography: the method. In: Munhall P., and Oiler Boyd C. (Eds). Nursing research a qualitative perspective (1993), National League for Nursing, New York 237-268
14. Emerson R., Fretz R., and Shaw L. Narrative analysis in ethnography. In: Atkinson P., Coffey A., Delamont S., Lofland J., and Lofland L. (Eds). Handbook of ethnography (2001), Sage, Thousand Oaks 352-368
15. Tesch R. Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools (1990), Falmer, New York
16. Jonsen A. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law, Medicine and Health Care 14 (1986) 172-174
17. Nord E., Richardson J., Street A., Kuhse H., and Singer P. Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values?. Health Policy 34 (1995) 79-94