Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: Addressing inevitable conflicts

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 73-85

  Sabik, Lindsay M ^a   Lie, Reidar K ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability for reasonableness; Appeal process; Health care; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; LAW; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NORWAY; PATIENT RIGHT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DECISION MAKING; ETHICAL ANALYSIS; ETHICAL THEORY; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; NORWAY; PATIENT RIGHTS; PRINCIPLE-BASED ETHICS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 48549087342     PISSN: 13867415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11017-008-9062-4     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ham, C. 1997. Priority setting in health care: Learning from international experience. Health Policy 42: 49-66.
2. Danish Council of Ethics. 1997. Priority-setting in the health service.
3. Daniels, N. 1999. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. Journal of Urban Health 76: 176-191.
4. Daniels, N. 2001. Justice, health, and healthcare. American Journal of Bioethics 1: 2-16.
5. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26: 303-350.
6. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1998. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Affairs 17: 50-64. 50-64.
7. Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 2002. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Martin, D.K., P.A. Singer, and M. Bernstein. 2003. Access to intensive care unit beds for neurosurgery patients: A qualitative case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 74: 1299-1303.
9. Mielke, J., D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: Qualitative case study. Critical Care Medicine 31: 2764-2768.
10. Rocker, G.M., D.J. Cook, D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Seasonal bed closures in an intensive care unit: A qualitative study. Journal of Critical Care 18: 25-30.
11. Gibson, J.L., D.K. Martin, and P.A. Singer. 2004. Setting priorities in health care organizations: Criteria, processes, and parameters of success. BMC Health Services Research 4: 25.
12. Martin, D.K., D. Hollenberg, S. MacRae, S. Madden, and P. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: A qualitative case study and evaluation. Health Policy 66: 295-303.
13. Reeleder, D., D.K. Martin, C. Keresztes, and P.A. Singer. 2005. What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions? BMC Health Services Research 5: 8.
14. Singer, P.A., D.K. Martin, M. Giacomini, and L. Purdy. 2000. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: Qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 321: 1316-1318.
15. Martin, D.K., N. Walton, and P.A. Singer. 2003. Priority setting in surgery: Improve the process and share the learning. World Journal of Surgery 27: 962-966.
16. Mielke, J., and K.K. Kalangu. 2003. The surgeon and human immunodeficiency virus. World Journal of Surgery 27: 967-971. discussion 971.
17. Martin, D., K. Shulman, P. Santiago-Sorrell, and P. Singer. 2003. Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: A qualitative case study. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 8: 197-201.
18. Bell, J.A., S. Hyland, T. DePellegrin, R.E. Upshur, M. Bernstein, and D.K. Martin. 2004. Sars and hospital priority setting: A qualitative case study and evaluation. BMC Health Services Research 4: 36.
19. Kapiriri, L., and O.F. Norheim. 2004. Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: Exploration of stakeholders' values. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82: 172-179.
20. Daniels, N. 2005. Fair process in patient selection for antiretroviral treatment in WHO's goal of 3 by 5. Lancet 366: 169-171.
21. Syse, A. 2000. Norway: Valid (as opposed to informed) consent. Lancet 356: 1347-1348.
22. Norwegian Government. 1999. Patients' Rights Act (July 2). Available at http://home.online.no/~wkeim/patients_rights_act.htm (accessed August 17, 2005).
23. Cookson, R., D. McDaid, and A. Maynard. 2001. Wrong sign, NICE mess: Is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? British Medical Journal 323: 743-745.
24. NICE. 2004a. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (April). Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf (accessed August 17, 2005).
25. NICE. 2004b. Technology appraisal process: Guidance for appellants (April). Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ TAP_Guide_for_Appellants.pdf (accessed April 25, 2005).
26. Ellis, S.J. 2001. The failings of NICE. Doctors treating patients with multiple sclerosis will lose confidence in NICE. British Medical Journal 322: 491.
27. Ellis, S.J. 2002. Bad decision NICE. Lancet 359: 447.
28. Hartung, H.P. 2000. NICE and drugs for multiple sclerosis. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Lancet 356: 1114.
29. Kernick, D. 2002. Beta interferon, NICE, and rationing. British Journal of General Practice 52: 784-785.
30. Mayor, S. 2001. Health department to fund interferon beta despite institute's ruling. British Medical Journal 323: 1087.
31. Kmietowicz, Z. 2001. Reform of NICE needed to boost its credibility. British Medical Journal 323: 1324.
32. Supreme Court of the United States. 2004. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (decided June 21).
33. Netter, W. 2000. ERISA: U.S. Supreme Court holds treatment decisions made by HMO physician-employees do not breach fiduciary duty. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28: 309-311.
34. Mariner, W.K. 2004. The Supreme Court's limitation of managed-care liability. New England Journal of Medicine 351: 1347-1352.
35. Hammer, P.J. 2001. Pegram v. Herdrich: On peritonitis, preemption, and the elusive goal of managed care accountability. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 26: 767-787.
36. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Williams-Jones, B., and M.M. Burgess. 2004. Social contract theory and just decision making: Lessons from genetic testing for the BRCA mutations. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14: 115-142.
38. Emanuel, E.J. 2002. Book review: Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New England Journal of Medicine 347: 953-954.