Fixing the game: Are between-silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head-start?

Health Economics

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 449-465

  Segal, Leonie ^a,b   Dalziel, Kim ^b   Mortimer, Duncan ^a,b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Funding of health care; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COMMUNITY CARE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUSTRALIA; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77949718362     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1483     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. ABS. 2005. Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product (5206.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, September.
2. Bell C, Urbach D, Ray J, Bayoumi A, Rosen A, Greenberg D, Neumann P. 2006. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies. British Medical Journal 332: 699-703.
3. Birch S, Gafni A. 2004. The 'NICE' approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Management Science 7: 35-41.
4. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. 2007. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Economics 16: 179-193.
5. Carter R, Stone C, Vos T, Hocking J, Mihalopolous C, Peacock S, Crowley S. 2000. Report 19: Trial of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to Assist Cancer Control Planning in Australia. Full Report. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University and University of Melbourne, Melbourne. (Available from: www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/rr19full. pdf [5 June 2007].)
6. Chapman R, Stone P, Sandberg E, Bell C, Neumann P. 2000. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of 'panel-worthy' studies. Medical Decision Making 20: 451-467.
7. Dakin H, Devlin N, Odeyemi I. 2006. 'Yes', 'No' or 'Yes, but'? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 77: 352-367.
8. Dalziel K, Segal L, Mortimer D. 2008. Review of Australian Health Economic Evaluation - 245 interventions: what can we say about cost effectiveness? Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 6: 9.
9. Devlin N, Parkin D. 2004. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Economics 13: 437-452.
10. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. 2005. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Economics 14: 197-208.
11. Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M. 2004. The Economics of Health and Health Care. Macmillan: New York.
12. George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. 2001. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 19: 1-8.
13. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weistein MC. 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: Melbourne.
14. Greene WH. 1993. Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.
15. Harris A, Hill S, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. 2008. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia. A retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Medical Decision Making 28: 713-722.
16. Henry DA, Hill SR, Harris A. 2005. Drug prices and value for money: the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Journal of the American Medical Association 294: 2630-2632.
17. Madden L, Hussey R, Mooney G, Church E. 1995. Public health and economics in tandem: programme budgeting, marginal analysis and priority setting in practice. Health Policy 33: 161-168.
18. Marmot M. 2005. Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet 365: 1099-1104.
19. Mason J, Drummond M, Torrance G. 1993. Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables. British Medical Journal 306: 570-572.
20. Mitton C, Donaldson C. 2001. Twenty-five years of programme budgeting and marginal analysis in the health sector, 1974-1999. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 6: 239-248.
21. Moller J. 2005. Current costing models: are they suitable for allocating health resources? The example of fall injury prevention in Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37: 25-33.
22. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski N, Stone P, Rosen A. 2005. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health 8: 3-9.
23. O'Malley P. 2006. The Australian experiment: the use of evidence based medicine for the reimbursement of surgical and diagnostic procedures (1998-2004). Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 10: 3.
24. PBAC. 2006. Guidelines for Preparing Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.1), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
25. Rice T. 1998. The Economics of Health Reconsidered. Health Administration: Chicago.
26. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. 2000. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 17: 461-477.
27. Segal L. 1998. Health funding: the nature of distortions and implications for the health service mix. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 22: 271-273.
28. Segal L, Carter R. 1997. The economics of diabetes care: Australia. In International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus, Alberti KGMM, Zimmet P, DeFronzo RA, Keen H (eds). Wiley: Chichester; 1779-1786.
29. Segal L, Day S, Chapman A, Osborne R. 2004. How can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis? An evidenced based priority setting model. Medical Journal of Australia 180: S11-S17.
30. Segal L, Donato R, Richardson J, Peacock S. 2002. Strengths and limitations of competitive versus non-competitive models of integrated capitated fundholding. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 7: S156-S164.
31. Segal L, Mortimer D. 2006. A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 4: 6.
32. Segal L, Richardson J. 1994. Economic framework for allocative efficiency in the health sector. Australian Economic Review 2nd Quarter: 89-97.
33. Singer P, Martin D, Giacomini M, Purdy L. 2000. Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study. British Medical Journal 321: 316-318.
34. Vos T, Haby MM, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C, Andrews G, Carter R. 2005. Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: helping policy-makers prioritize and plan health services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 39: 701-712.