Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: A survey of preferences ofNorwegian doctors

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 94, Issue , 2013, Pages 56-62

  Desser, Arna S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Doctor preferences; Norway; Orphan drugs; Priority setting; Rare diseases; Societal preferences

Indexed keywords

DISEASE PREVALENCE; DISEASE TREATMENT; DRUG; HEALTH WORKER; POLICY MAKING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NORWAY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREVALENCE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RARE DISEASE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

DOCTOR PREFERENCES; NORWAY; ORPHAN DRUGS; PRIORITY SETTING; RARE DISEASES; SOCIETAL PREFERENCES;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; MALE; NORWAY; PHYSICIANS; RARE DISEASES;

NORWAY;

EID: 84881344116     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Carlsen B., Norheim O.F. "Saying no is no easy matter" a qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice. BMC Health Services Research 2005, 5(70).
2. Cookson R., Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 1999, 49:63-74.
3. Desser A.S., Gyrd-Hansen D., Olsen J.A., Grepperud S., et al. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. British Medical Journal 2010, 341:c4715.
4. Desser, A. S., Olsen, J. A., & Grepperud, S. Eliciting preferences for rare diseases: Do respondents react to opportunity costs or framing issues? University of Oslo. (submitted for publication).
5. Drummond M.F., Wilson D.A., Kanavos P., Ubel P., et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2007, 23:36-42.
6. EC No.141/2000 Regulation on orphan medicinal products 2000, Retrieved from:. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/pharmaceutical_and_cosmetic_products/l21167_en.htm.
7. HOD (Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services) The patients' rights act 1999, Retrieved from:. http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19990702-063-eng.pdf.
8. Hughes D.A., Tunnage B., Yeo S.T. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?. QJM 2005, 98:829-836.
9. Lønning-I NOU 1987:23 Retningslinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste 1987, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, Norway, Retrieved from:. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/nouer/1999/nou-1999-2/4/2.html%3fid%3d350994.
10. Lønning- NOU 1997:18 Prioritering på ny 1997, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, Norway, Retrieved from:. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/nouer/1997/nou-1997-18.html%3fid%3d140956.
11. McCabe C., Claxton K., Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity?. British Medical Journal 2005, 331:1016-1019.
12. McCabe C., Tsuchiya A., Claxton K., Raftery J. Orphan drugs revisited. QJM 2006, 99:341-345. discussion 350-1.
13. Mentzakis E., Stefanowska P., Hurley J. Adiscrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2011, 6:405-433.
14. NICE NICE citizen's council report on ultra orphan drugs 2004, Retrieved from:. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Citizens_Council_Ultraorphan.pdf.
15. Nord E., Richardson J., Street A., Kuhse H., et al. Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: an Australian survey of health issues. Social Science & Medicine 1995, 41:1429-1437.
16. The EuroQol Group EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16(3):199-208.
17. The Norwegian Medical Association Etiske regler for leger (Ethical guidelines for physicians) 2002, Retrieved from:. http://legeforeningen.no/Om-Legeforeningen/Organisasjonen/Rad-og-utvalg/Organisasjonspolitiske-utvalg/etikk/etiske-regler-for-leger/.
18. Tversky A., Shafir E. Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science 1992, 3(6):358-361.
19. US Food and Drug Administration Orphan drug act (as amended) 1983, Retrieved from:. http://www.fda.gov/orpshan/oda.htm.