Attitudes toward supplementary criteria in the reimbursement process in Poland

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 443-449

  Kolasa, Katarzyna ^a   Annemans, Lieven ^b   Lees, Michael ^a  

^a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; EDUCATION; GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INCOME; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; POLAND; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT STUDY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PILOT PROJECTS; POLAND; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84889564143     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000482     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych (AhTAPoL). www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed December 20, 1010).
2. Eichler H-G, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, J̈onsson B. Use of costeffectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518-528.
3. Laufer F. Thresholds in cost-effectiveness analysis-More of the story. Value Health. 2005;8:86-87.
4. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;328:224-227.
5. WeinsteinMC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716-721.
6. Johanesson M, Gerdthamn U. A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy. 1995;33:59-66.
7. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. HealThecon. 2005;14:197-208.
8. Jones-Lee MW. Altruism and the value of other people's safety. J Risk Uncertain. 1991;4:213-219.
9. Dolan P, Edlin R, Tschuiya A. Relative value of social health gains to different beneficiers. RM03/JH11, January 2008. http://www.haps2.bham. ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/docs/publications/JH11-Social-Value-QALY-Final- Report-Paul-Dolan-et-al-2008.pdf (accessed October 15, 2011).
10. Desser A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: Cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:4715-4721.
11. Gulacsi L, Hajdu O. Prioritization preferences among general practitioners in Hungary. East European Politics & Societies. 2012;26:20-32.
12. Johannesson M, Gerdtham U. A note on the estimation of the equityefficiency trade-off for QALYs. J HealThecon. 1996;15:359-368.
13. Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: A group discussion study. Health Policy. 1999;49:63-74.
14. 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. 1999;318:916-919.
15. Emmelin MAC, Lindholm LA, Stenlund HC, Dahlgren LG. Pol-ethical considerations in public health-The views of Swedish health care politicians. Eur J Public Health. 1999;9:124-130.
16. Ab́asolo I, Tsuchiya A. Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: An example from inequalities in health. J HealThecon. 2004:23:313-329.
17. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy. 1993;24:227-238.
18. Dolan P. The measurement of individual utility welfare. J HealThecon. 1998;17:39-52.
19. Ubel P. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:895-903.
20. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. HealThecon. 2004;13:437-452.
21. Harris A, Hill S, Chin G, et al. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: A retrospective analysis 1994-2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28;713-722.
22. Baeten SA, Baltussen RM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Bridges J, Niessen LW. Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis-three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Health. 2010;13:573-579.
23. Banham D, Lynch J, Karnon J. An equity-effectiveness framework linking health programs and healthy life expectancy. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17:309-319.
24. Martin DK, Giacomini M, Singer PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279-290.
25. Rolfe J, Khorshed A, Windle J, Whitten S. Designing the choice modelling survey instrument for establishing riparian buffers in the Fitzroy Basin, October 2004. Central Queensland University. http://www. ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/publications/docs/Fitzroy-RR3.pdf (accessed October 15, 2011).