Proceduralism and its role in economic evaluation and priority setting in health

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 108, Issue , 2014, Pages 257-261

  Jan, Stephen ^a  

^a GEORGE INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL HEALTH   (Australia)

Author keywords

Community values; Equity; Implementation; Priority setting; Procedural justice

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMUNITY CARE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; MEDICAL ETHICS; NOTE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; CONSUMER; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HISTORY; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ECONOMICS, MEDICAL; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 84899119879     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.029     Document Type: Note

References (26)

1. Chapman S. Public health should not be a popularity contest: a reply to Gavin Mooney. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2000, 24(3):337-339.
2. Daniels N., Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1997, 26(4):303-350.
3. Drummond M., Stoddart G., Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Gibson J.L., Martin D.K., Singer P.A. Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success. BMC Health Services Research 2004, 4(1):25. pii:1472-6963-4-25. 10.1186/1472-6963-4-25.
5. Jan S. Institutional considerations in priority setting: transactions cost perspective on PBMA. Health Economics 2000, 9(7):631-641. doi: 10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<631::AID-HEC531>3.0.CO;2-N [pii].
6. Jan S. Why does economic analysis in health care not get implemented more? Towards a greater understanding of the rules of the game and the costs of decision making. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2003, 2(1):17-24.
7. Jan S., Dommers E., Mooney G. Apolitico-economic analysis of decision making in funding health service organisations. Social Science & Medicine 2003, 57(3):427-435. pii:S0277953602003684.
8. Jan S., Mooney G., Ryan M., Bruggemann K., Alexander K. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit community preferences in public health research: a case study of hospital services in South Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2000, 24(1):64-70.
9. Jan S., Pronyk P., Kim J. Accounting for institutional change in health economic evaluation: a program to tackle HIV/AIDS and gender violence in Southern Africa. Social Science & Medicine 2008, 66(4):922-932. pii:S0277-9536(07)00583-7. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.010.
10. Maluka S., Kamuzora P., SanSebastian M., Byskov J., Ndawi B., Olsen O.E., et al. Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation. Implementation Science 2011, 6(11):1-15.
11. Mooney G. Key issues in health economics 1994, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
12. Mooney G. What else do we want from our health services?. Social Science & Medicine 1994, 39(2):151-154.
13. Mooney G. Community autonomy remains crucial to public health, despite measurement difficulties: a response to Simon Chapman. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2000, 24(3):340.
14. Mooney G. The need to build community autonomy in public health. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2000, 24(2):111-112.
15. Mooney G. Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?. Social Science & Medicine 2005, 60(2):247-255. pii:S0277953604002242. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.033.
16. Mooney G. Challenging health economics 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
17. Mooney G., Blackwell S. Whose health service is it anyway? Community values in healthcare. Medical Journal of Australia 2004, 180(2):76-78. doi:moo10757_fm [pii].
18. Mooney G., Jan S. Vertical equity: weighting outcomes? or establishing procedures?. Health Policy 1997, 39(1):79-87. pii:S0168851096008512.
19. Mooney G., Jan S., Wiseman V. Examining preferences for allocating health care gains. Health Care Analysis 1995, 3(3):261-265. 10.1007/BF02197680.
20. Mooney G., Jan S., Wiseman V. Staking a claim for claims: a case study of resource allocation in Australian Aboriginal health care. Social Science & Medicine 2002, 54(11):1657-1667.
21. Mooney G., Lange M. Ante-natal screening: what constitutes 'benefit'?. Social Science & Medicine 1993, 37(7):873-878.
22. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal 2000, 320(7248):1530-1533.
23. Sabik L.M., Lie R.K. Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2008, 29(2):73-85. 10.1007/s11017-008-9062-4.
24. Sen A. Inequality re-examined 1992, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
25. Tsuchiya A., Miguel L.S., Edlin R., Wailoo A., Dolan P. Procedural justice in public health care resource allocation. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2005, 4(2):119-127. doi: 426 [pii].
26. Wailoo A., Anand P. The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions. Social Science & Medicine 2005, 60(2):223-236. pii:S0277953604002229. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.036.