A four-country survey of public attitudes towards restricting healthcare costs by limiting the use of high-cost medical interventions

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Blendon, Robert J ^a   Benson, John M ^a   Botta, Michael D ^b   Zeldow, Deborah ^c   Kim, Minah Kang ^a,d  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Alliance for Aging Research   (United States)

^d Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; ITALY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862220960     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001087     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Health Care Systems in Transition: Germany. 2000. http://www.euro.who.int/-data/assets/ pdf-file/0010/80776/E68952.pdf (accessed 30 Mar 2012).
2. Jonsson B. IQWiG: an opportunity lost? Eur J Health Econ 2008;9:205-7.
3. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Millbank Q 2009;87:339-67.
4. France G, Taroni F, Donatini A. The Italian health-care system. Health Econ 2005;14(Suppl 1):S187-202. (Pubitemid 41404324)
5. Macarthur D. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in the United Kingdom. Health Economics in Prevention and Care 2000;1:47-50.
6. Kamerow D. PCORI: odd name, important job, potential trouble. BMJ 2011;342:d2635.
7. Iglehart JK. The political fight over comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1757-60.
8. Gerber AS, Patashnik EM, Doherty D, et al. The public wants information, not board mandates, from comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29: 1872-81.
9. Busse R. Priority-setting and rationing in German health care. Health Policy 1999;50:71-90. (Pubitemid 30038207)
10. Fattore G. Clarifying the scope of Italian NHS coverage. Is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Policy 1999;50:123-42. (Pubitemid 30038210)
11. Diederich A, Winkelhage J, Wirsik N. Age as a criterion for setting priorities in health care? A survey of the German public view. PLoS One 2011;6:e23930. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi %2F10.1371%2Fjournal. pone.0023930 (accessed 30 Mar 2012).
12. Smith R. Bowel cancer drug Avastin turned down by NICE. The Telegram 24 August 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/ healthnews/7959762/Bowel-cancer- drug-Avastin-turned-down-by- Nice.html (accessed 30 Mar 2012).
13. Pavlou F. Avastin to be reimbursed by Italian authorities. Ophthalmology Times Europe 1 July 2007. http://www.oteurope.com/ ophthalmologytimeseurope/ content/printContentPopup.jsp? id=476054 (accessed 30 Mar 2012).
14. Kernick D. Beta interferon, NICE, and rationing. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52:784-5. (Pubitemid 36187612)
15. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Benefit of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Patients with Head and Neck Tumors cannot be Assessed. 2011. https://www.iqwig.de/benefit-of-positron-emission-tomography- pet-in.1287.en.html (accessed 30 Mar 2012).