What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?

European Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 285-288

  Buxton, Martin J ^a   Chambers, James D ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MEDICARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; INFORMATION SCIENCE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; INFORMATICS; SOCIAL VALUES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80052583927     PISSN: 16187598     EISSN: 16187601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0320-4     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Liljas, B.: On the theoretic foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis - the case when survival is not affected. Eur J Health Econ 11(1), 5-13 (2010)
2. Breyer, F.: On the welfare theoretic foundations of CEA: comment. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 595-596 (2010)
3. Liljas, B.: Cost-effectiveness analysis, welfare economics and the societal perspective: a reply. Eur J Health Econ 11(6), 597-598 (2010)
4. Brouwer, W.B., Culyer, A.J., van Exel, N.J., Rutten, F.F.: Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ 27(2), 325-338 (2008)
5. Hutton, J., McGrath, C., Frybourg, J.-M., Tremblay, M., Bramley- Harker, E., Henshall, C.: Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22(1), 10-18 (2006) (Pubitemid 43376234)
6. Department of Health: New technology for the health service. Press release of speech by Frank Dobson, Secretary of State for Health. 15th February 1999, # 1999/0086
7. Chaldikou, K., Walley, T.: Using comparative effectiveness research to inform policy and practice in the UK NHS. Pharmacoeconomics 28(10), 799-811 (2010)
8. Department of Health: A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: a consultation document. 16th December 2010: paragraph 5.7 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/ Liveconsultations/DH-122760. Accessed 2nd May 2011
9. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(10), 716-726, W-236 (2009)
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare coverage determination process. Available from: http://www. cms.hhs.gov/ DeterminationProcess/ Accessed 2nd May 2011
11. Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J.: Listening to provenge - what a costly cancer treatment says about medicare policy on new technology. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(18), 1687-1689 (2011)
12. Chambers, J.D., Neumann, P.J., Buxton, M.J.: Does medicare have an implicit cost-effectiveness threshold? Med. Decis. Making 30(4), E14-E27 (2010)
13. Pouvourville, G.: A French approach to cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 11, 521-523 (2010)
14. Guttman, N., Shalev, C., Kaplan, G., Abulafia, A., Bin-Nun, G., Goffer, R., Ben-Moshe, R., Tal, O., Shani, M., Lev, B.: What should be given a priority - costly medications for relatively few people or expensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation in Israel. Health Expect. 11, 177-188 (2008) (Pubitemid 351725001)
15. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; Social Value Judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd edn. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ 2PUBLICATION2008.pdf Accessed 2nd May 2011
16. Ratcliffe, R., Buxton, M., Young, T., Longworth, L.: Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 4(4), 249-255 (2005) (Pubitemid 43242213)
17. Lancsar, E., Wildman, J.C., Donaldson, C., Ryan, M., Baker, R.: Deriving distributional weights from QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30, 466-478 (2011)
18. Dolan, P., Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A.: The relative societal value of health gains to different beneficiaries. Final Report. 31st January 2008. http://www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/ docs/publications/JH11- Social-Value-QALY-Final-Report-Paul- Dolan-et-al-2008.pdf. Accessed 2nd May 2011
19. Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18, S951-S976 (2009)
20. Dolan, P., Cookson, R., Ferguson, B.: Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 318(7188), 916-919 (1999) (Pubitemid 29191929)
21. Sabik, L.M., Reidar, K.L.: Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7(4), (2008)
22. Coast, J.: Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values? BMJ 329, 1233-1236 (2004) (Pubitemid 39551449)