Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: An international perspective

Health Policy

Volumn 105, Issue 2-3, 2012, Pages 226-235

  Rosenberg Yunger, Zahava R S ^a   Thorsteinsdóttir, Halla ^b   Daar, Abdallah S ^b   Martin, Douglas K ^b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Priority setting; Stakeholder engagement

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DECISION MAKING; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; FUNDING; HUMAN; ISRAEL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REIMBURSEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ALPHA-GALACTOSIDASE; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DRUG COSTS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ENGLAND; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; GLUCOSYLCERAMIDASE; HUMANS; ISOENZYMES; ISRAEL; PIPERAZINES; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; PROTEIN C; PYRIMIDINES; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; UNITED STATES; WALES;

EID: 84859764390     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Florin D., Dixon J. Public involvement in health care. British Medical Journal 2004, 328(7432):159-161.
2. New B. Rationing-talk and action in health care 1997, King's Fund and BMJ, London.
3. Chodos H. Emerging solutions (Clair Commission Report) Quebec 2001, Ministry of Health, Political and Social Affairs Division.
4. Romanow R.J. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada. Final report 2002, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Saskatoon.
5. Mazankowski D. A framework for reform: report of the Alberta Premier's Advisory Council on health (Mazankowski report) 2001, Premier's Advisory Council on Health for Alberta, Edmonton.
6. Fyke K.J. MEDICARE-commission on medicare final report (Fyke report) 2001, The Commission on Medicare Government of Saskatchewan, Regina.
7. Kirby M.J.L. The health of Canadians-the federal role final report 2002, Government of Canada.
8. Conklin A., Slote Morris Z., Nolte E. Involving the public in healthcare policy: an update of the research evidence and proposed evaluation framework 2010, RAND Corporation Europe Bertelsmann Foundation, Cambridge.
9. Vallg°arda S., Krasnick A., Vrangbæk K. Denmark: healthcare systems in transition 2001, European Observatory on Healthcare Systems, Copenhagen, p. 100.
10. Citizens Jury on health priorities 2010: report by ACT Health Council; 2010 [cited 2011 August 16]. Available from: http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health%3Fa=sendfile%26ft=p%26fid=1293068459%26sid=
11. The citizens' reference panel on health technologies; 2009 [cited]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohtac/citizen_panel.html.
12. Delap C. Citizens' juries: reflections on the UK experience. PLA notes no. 40: deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment 2001, International Institute for Environment and Development, London. M. Pimbert, T. Wakeford (Eds.).
13. Public consultation planned for rural and northern health care; 2010 [cited August 16.8.11]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2010/ruralnorthern_report.aspx.
14. Harrison S., Dowswell G., Milewa T., et al. Guest editorial: public and user involvement in the UK National Health. Service Health & Social Care in the Community 2002, 10(2):63-66.
15. Bruni R., Laupacis A., Martin D.K. Public engagement in setting priorities in health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008, 179(1):15-18.
16. Gauvin F.P., Abelson J. Primer on public involvement 2006, Health Council of Canada.
17. Murphy N. Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities. Health Expectations 2005, 8(2):172-181.
18. Cumming J. Core services and priority-setting: the New Zealand experience. Health Policy 1994, 29(1-2):41-60.
19. Hadorn D.C., Holmes A.C. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1. Overview. British Medical Journal 1997, 314(7074):131-134.
20. Bloomfield A. New Zealand. Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care 2003, 16-41. Open University Press, Philadelphia. C. Ham, G. Robert (Eds.).
21. Norheim O.F. Norway. Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care 2003, 94-114. Open University Press, Philadelphia. C. Ham, G. Robert (Eds.).
22. Holm S. Developments in the Nordic countries-good bye to the simple solutions. The global challenge of health care rationing 2000, 29-38. Open University Press, Philadelphia. A. Coulter, C. Ham (Eds.).
23. Norheim O.F., Ekeberg O., Evensen S.A., Halvorsen M., Kvernebo K., et al. Adoption of new health care services in Norway (1993-1997): specialists' self-assessment according to national criteria for priority setting. Health Policy 2001, 56(1):65-79.
24. Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission Priorities in health care 1995, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Stockholm.
25. Ham C., Robert G. Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care. 2003, Open University Press, Philadelphia.
26. McKee M., Figueras J. Setting priorities, can Britain learn from Sweden?. British Medical Journal 1996, 312(7032):691-694.
27. Sabik L.M., Lie R.K. Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health 2008, 7:4.
28. Shani S., Siebzehner M.I., Luxenburg O., Shemer J., et al. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level-the Israeli experience. Health Policy 2000, 54(3):169-185.
29. Chinitz D., Shalev C., Galai N., Israeli A., et al. The second phase of priority setting. Israel's basic basket of health services: the importance of being explicitly implicit. British Medical Journal 1998, 317(7164):1005-1007.
30. Kapiriri L. Opportunities for public accountability in priority setting: the case of Uganda 2003, University of Bergen, Bergen.
31. Kapiriri L., Norheim O.F., Heggenhougen K. Using burden of disease information for health planning in developing countries: the experience from Uganda. Social Science & Medicine 2003, 56(12):2433-2441.
32. Kapiriri L., Norheim O.F., Heggenhougen K. Public participation in health planning and priority setting at the district level in Uganda. Health Policy and Planning 2003, 18(2):205-213.
33. Redden C. Rationing care in the community: engaging citizens in health care decision making. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1999, 24(6):1363-1389.
34. Coulter A., Ham C. The global challenge of health care rationing 2001, Open University Press, Philadelphia.
35. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness in private and public health insurance. The global challenge of health care rationing 2001, 89-106. Open University Press, Buckingham. A. Coulter, C. Ham (Eds.).
36. Martin D., Singer P. Canada. Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care 2003, 42-63. Open University Press, Philadelphia. C. Ham, G. Robert (Eds.).
37. Lavandeira A. Orphan drugs: legal aspects, current situation. Hemophilia 2002, 8(3):194-198.
38. Clarke J.T.R., Amato D., Deber R.B. Managing public payment for high cost, high-benefit therapy for Gaucher's disease in Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2001, 165(5):595-596.
39. Fabrazyme for health professionals [cited 2005 February 17]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/pbs/healthpro/supply/othersupply.htm.
40. Shook D. A shock to Lilly's system; 2002 [cited 3.8.04]. Available from: http://yahoo.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2002/nf2002037_2428.htm.
41. PBS for Professionals RE CML [cited 29.10.07]. Available from: http://www.pbs.gov.au/html/healthpro/search/results%3Fpublication=SY.
42. Enbrel & remicade: side by side [cited 10.5.05]. Available from: http://arthritis.about.com/cs/enbrel/a/sidebyside_2.htm.
43. Gonal F. Destination RX [cited 21.6.05]. Available from: http://www.destinationrx.com/prescriptions/refine.asp%3FBrandName=Gonal-F.
44. The Sage handbook of qualitative research 2005, Sage Publications, London. 3rd ed. N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.).
45. Maxwell J.A. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Applied social research methods series 1996, vol. 41. Sage Publications, London.
46. Creswell J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions 1998, Sage Publications, London.
47. Gallego G., Taylor S.J., Brien J.A. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: a case study. Health Policy 2007, 84(1):58-66.
48. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. 2nd ed.
49. Syrett K. A technocratic fix to the "legitimacy problem" ? The Blair government and health care rationing in the United Kingdom. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2003, 28(4):715-746.
50. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., Singer P.A. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 2002, 61(3):279-290.
51. Schünemann H.J., Fretheim A., Oxman A.D. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development. 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Research Policy and Systems 2006, 4(22).
52. Wiseman V., Mooney G., Berry G., Tang K.C., et al. Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia. Social Science & Medicine 2003, 56(5):1001-1012.
53. Litva A., Coast J., Donovan J., Eyles J., Shepherd M., Tacchi J., et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine 2002, 54(12):1825-1837.
54. Abelson J., Gauvin F. Assessing the impacts of public participation: concepts, evidence and policy implications 2006, Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc., Ottawa.
55. Daniels N., Sabin J. Setting limits fairly 2002, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 191.