6-STEPPPs: A modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs

Journal of Oncology Practice

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 2-7

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

^a Alberta Cancer Board   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^d CALGARY HEALTH REGION   (Canada)

^e BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; NEW DRUG;

6 SYSTEMATIC TOOL FOR EVALUATING PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS FOR PUBLIC FUNDING DECISIONS; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CULTURAL VALUE; DRUG COST; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; ONCOLOGY; PHARMACY; POLICY; PROCESS DESIGN; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; VIDEOTAPE;

EID: 40949163022     PISSN: 15547477     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.0812001     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Schrag D: The price tag on progress: Chemotherapy for dolorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:317-319, 2004
2. Meropol NJ, Schulman KA: Cost of cancer care: Issues and implications. J Clin Oncol 25:180-186, 2006
3. Browman GP: Viewpoint: Clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decisions - Credibility gaps and unfulfilled promises? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2:480-481, 2005
4. Wilking N, Jonsson B: A pan-European comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs: Karolinska Institutet. Available at http://ki.se/ content/1/c4/3a/16/Cancer-Report.pdf
5. Menon D, Stafinski T, Suart G, et al: Access to drugs in Canada: Does where you live matter? Can J Public Health 96:454-458, 2005
6. Gregoire JP, McNeil P, Skilton K, et al: Inter-provincial variation in government, drug formularies. Can J Public Health 92:307-312, 2001
7. Beach MC, Meredith LS, Halpern J, et al: Physician conceptions of responsibility to indviudal patients and distributive justice in health care. Ann Family Med 3:53-59, 2005
8. Carlsen B, Norheim OF: "Saying no is no easy matter": A qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice. BMC Health Serv Res 5: 70, 2005
9. Hurst SA, Hull SC, DuVal G, et al: Physicians' responses to resource constraints. Arch Int Med 165:639-644, 2005
10. Perneger TV, Martin DP, Bovier PA: Physicians' attitudes toward healthcare rationing. Med Decis Making 22:65-70, 2002
11. Pater JL, Browman G, Brouwers M, et al: Funding new cancer drugs in Ontario: Closing the loop in the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle. J Clin Oncol 19:3392-3396, 2001
12. Evans WK, Nefsky M, Peter J, et al: Cancer Care Ontarlo's New Drug Funding Program: Controlled introduction of expensive anticancer drugs. Chronic Diseases in Canada 23:152-158, 2002
13. Sikora K, Advani S, Koroltchouk V, et al: Essential drugs for cancer therapy: A World Health Organization consultation. Ann Oncol 10:385-390, 1999
14. Foy R, So J, Rous E, et al: Perspective of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritizing new cancer drugs: Impact of the evidence threshold. BMJ 318:456-459, 1999
15. Giacomini M, Miller F, Prowman G: Confronting the "Grey Zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:301-316, 2003
16. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, et al: Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A qualitative case study. BMJ 321:1316-1319, 2000
17. Daniels N, Teagarden JR, Sabin JE: An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff 22:125-137, 2003
18. Meslin EM, Lemieux-Charles L, Wortley JT: An ethics framework for assisting clinician-managers in resource allocation decision making. Hosp Health Serv Adm 42:33-48, 1997
19. Wilson ECF, Rees J, Fordham J: Developing a prioritization framework in an English primary care trust. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 4:3, 2006
20. Martin DK, Giacomini M, Singer PA: Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision makers. Health Policy 61:279-290, 2002
21. Daniels N: Accountability for reasonableness. Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles: BMJ 321:1300-1301, 2000
22. Glacomini M: One of these things is not like the others: The idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Milbank Q 83: 193-223, 2005
23. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 1987
24. Verasco-Garrido, M, Busse R: Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence and structure in Europe - WHO European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/document/E87866.pdf
25. The GRADE Working Group: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490-1494, 2004
26. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA: Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAMA 283:2116-2121, 2000
27. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS: An amessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 318:1728-1735, 1988
28. Cook RJ, Sackett DL: The number needed to treat: A clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 310:452-454, 1995
29. Sinclair S, Hagen N, Chambers C, et al: Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drugfunding. Health Policy (in press)