Health technology assessment, deliberative process, and ethically contested issues

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 32, Issue 1-2, 2016, Pages 10-15

  Daniels, Norman ^a   Van Der Wilt, Gert Jan ^b  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Accountability; Cochlear implants; Deliberative democracy; Fairness; Priority setting; Wide reflective equilibrium

Indexed keywords

HEALTH; HEALTH CARE;

ACCOUNTABILITY; DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY; DELIBERATIVE PROCESS; FAIRNESS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY SETTING; PROCEDURAL JUSTICE;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS;

ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE CONCEPTS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT SAFETY; RESPONSIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CHILD; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC MODEL; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HANDICAPPED CHILD; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSON; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REHABILITATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABLED CHILDREN; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; PERSONS WITH HEARING IMPAIRMENTS; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOCIAL JUSTICE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84982806365     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462316000155     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Banta HD, Jonsson E. History of HTA: An introduction. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 2009;25(S1):1-6
2. Hoffman B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc04 http://www.egms.de/static/de/journals/hta/2014-10/hta000120.shtml (accessed October 30, 2015)
3. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477-2481
4. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Discourse and morality. Ethics. 2000;110:514-536
5. Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, et al. The efficiency Frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ. 2010;19:1117-1127
6. Brock D. Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health care resources. In: Khusfh G, Engelhardt T, eds. Bioethics: A philosophical overview. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers; 2004:353-380
7. Brock D. Priority to the worst off in health care resource prioritization. In: Battin M, Rhodes R, Silvers A, eds. Medicine and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:362-372
8. Kamm F. Morality, mortality: Death and whom to save from it. (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993
9. Daniels N. How to achieve fair distribution of ARTs in 3 by 5: Fair process and legitimacy in patient selection. Geneva: World Health Organization /UNAIDS; 2004
10. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximization and peoples preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14:197-208
11. Menzel P, Gold M, Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, Ubel P. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29:7-15
12. Cohen J. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Bohman J, Rehg W, eds. Deliberative democracy. Essays on reasons and politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1997:407-437
13. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971
14. Daniels N. Wide reflective equilibrium and theory choice in ethics. J Philos. 1979;76:256-282
15. Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996
16. van der Burg W, vanWilligenburg Theo, (eds.). 1998. Reflective equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger (Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy). Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1998
17. Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HAMJ, de Vries Robbé PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium.JMed Philos. 2001;26:245-261
18. Schön D, Rein M. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1995
19. Reuzel RPB. Health technology assessment and interactive evaluation: Different perspectives. Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen; 2001
20. Fischer F. Democracy and expertise. Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009
21. Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly. 1st and 2nd eds. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:2008
22. Farrell A, VanDeveer SD, Jäger J. Environmental assessments: Four under-appreciated elements of design. Glob Environ Change. 2001;11:311-333
23. Moret M, Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, Grin J. Validity and reliability of qualitative data analysis: Inter-observer agreement in reconstructing interpretative frames. Field Methods. 2007;19:24-39
24. Grin J, van de Graaf H. Technology assessment as learning. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1996;20:72-99
25. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26:303-350
26. Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly: Learning to share resources for health. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.