Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources

Is it All About the Health Gain?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past decade, public distrust in unavoidable value-laden decisions on the allocation of resources to new health technologies has grown. In response, healthcare organizations have made considerable efforts to improve their acceptability by increasing transparency in decision-making processes. However, the social value judgments (distributive preferences of the public) embedded in them have yet to be defined. While the need to explicate such judgments has become widely recognized, the most appropriate approach to accomplishing this remains unclear. The aims of this review were to identify factors around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought, create a list of social values proposed or used in current resource allocation decision-making processes for new health technologies, and review approaches to eliciting such values from the general public. Social values proposed or used in making resource allocation decisions for new health technologies were identified through three approaches: (i) a comprehensive review of published, peer-reviewed, empirical studies of public preferences for the distribution of healthcare; (ii) an analysis of non-technical factors or social value statements considered by technology funding decision-making processes in Canada and abroad; and (iii) a review of appeals to funding decisions on grounds in part related to social value judgments. A total of 34 empirical studies, 10 technology funding decision-making processes, and 12 appeals to decisions were identified and reviewed. The key factors/patient characteristics addressed through policy statements and around which distributive preferences of the public have been sought included severity of illness, immediate need, age (and its relationship to lifetime health), health gain (amount and final outcome/health state), personal responsibility for illness, caregiving responsibilities, and number of patients who could benefit (rarity). Empirical studies typically examined the importance of these factors in isolation. Therefore, the extent to which preferences around one factor may be modified in the presence of others is still unclear. Research that seeks to clarify interactions among factors by asking the public to weigh several of them at once is needed to ensure the relevance of elicited preferences to real-world technology funding decisions

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). How should high cost medicines be funded? Paper for public consultation. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2006/ 12/15/HCMConsult.pdf/text [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Department of Health and Ageing. Discussion paper 4: improved administration of commonwealth HTA processes. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub lishing.nsf/Content/9CB872326EA192E5CA25764100024 D0C/$File/discussionpaper4.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  3. Department of Health and Ageing. Discussion paper 1: a conceptual framework for commonwealth HTA processes. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing. nsf/Content/htareview_discussion_paper1 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  4. Department of Health and Ageing. Review of health technology assessment in Australia: a discussion paper. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ 208F913CD40AD7F9CA2575850080CACD/$File/htadis cussionpaper.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Luft HS. Universal health care coverage: a potential hybrid solution. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62(7): 450–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Emmelin MA, Lindholm LA, Stenlund HC, et al. Pol-ethical considerations in public health: the views of Swedish health care politicians. Eur J Public Health 1999; 9(2): 124–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maynard A, Bloor K, Freemantle N. Challenges for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. BMJ 2004; 329(7459): 227–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rawlins M, Dillon A. NICE discrimination. J Med Ethics 2005; 31(12): 683–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13(5): 437–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329(7459): 224–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Commission d’etude sur les services de sante et les services sociaux. Emerging solutions: report and recommendations. Quebec City (QC): Government of Quebec, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://publications.msss. gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2001/01-109-01a.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ekos Research Associates Inc. Evaluation of the first year of operation for the Common Drug Review: final report. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://cadth.ca/media/cdr/cdr_evaluation_firstyear_ oct2005.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  13. The health of Canadians: the federal role. Final report on the state of the health care system in Canada. Ottawa (ON): Government of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/ 2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/soci-e/rep-e/repoct02v o16-e.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  14. Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on values: the future of health care in Canada. Final report. Ottawa (ON): Government of Canada, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.collectionsca nada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071122004429/http://www.hc-sc. gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/hcc_final_report.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dault M, Lomas J, Barer M. Listening for direction II: a national consultation on health services and policy issues for 2004–2007. Final report. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/24509.html [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  16. Martin DK, Giacomini M, Singer PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 2002; 61(3): 279–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dolan P, Edlin R, Tsuchiya A, et al. It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it: characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. J Econ Behav Organ 2007; 64(1): 157–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997; 26(4): 303–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Daniels N, Sabin J. The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. Health Aff (Millwood) 1998; 17(5): 50–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000; 321(7272): 1300–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon D, et al. Health technology funding decision making processes around the world: the same yet different. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29(6): 475–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. First report of session 2007–08. Volume 1. Report, together with formal minutes. London: House of Commons, Health Committee, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/ cmhealth/27/27.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  23. Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect 2002; 5(3): 210–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hansen P. A theoretical review of PHARMAC’s overarching approach to deciding which pharmaceuticals to fund, including high cost ones. Wellington: Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2006/ 06/06/HCM2.pdf[Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  25. Childress J. Who shall live when not all can live? In: Gorovitz S, editor. Moral problems in medicine. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1983: 640-9

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cookson R, McCabe C, Tsuchiya A. Public healthcare resource allocation and the rule of rescue. J Med Ethics 2008; 34(7): 540–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brock DW. Priority to the worse off in health-care resource prioritization. In: Rhodes R, Battin MP, Silvers A, editors. Medicine and social justice: essays on the distribution of health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002: 362–72

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cookson R, Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy 1999; 49(1-2): 63–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ 1997; 6(2): 117–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Grand J. Equity and choice: an essay in economics and applied philosophy. London: Harper-Collins, 1991

  31. Harris J. Maximising the health of the whole community: the principal objective of the NHS ought to be to maximise the aggregate improvement in the health status of the whole community. The case against (what the principal objective of the NHS should really be). In: New B, editor. Rationing: talk and action in health care. London: King’s Fund, BMJ Publishing Group, 1997: 100–6

    Google Scholar 

  32. Culyer T. Maximising the health of the whole community: the principal objective of the NHS ought to be to maximise the aggregate improvement in the health status of the whole community. The case for. In: New B, editor. Rationing: talk and action in health care. London: King’s Fund, BMJ Publishing Group, 1997: 95–100

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bates MJ. Tactics and vocabularies in online searching. In: White HD, Bates MJ, Wilson P, editors. For information specialists: interpretations of reference and bibliographic work. Norwood (NJ): Ablex Publishing, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008

  36. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20(1): 37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, et al. Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  38. List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. San Francisco (CA): Wikipedia Foundation, Inc., 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_ GDP_(nominal)_per_capita [Accessed 2010 Jul 10]

  39. Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell Publishing/BMJ Books, 2006: 82–101

  40. Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1999

  41. Roberts T, Bryan S, Heginbotham C, et al. Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective. Health Expect 1999; 2(4): 235–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dolan P. Effect of age on health state valuations. J Health Services Res Policy 2000; 5(1): 17–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Green C. Investigating public preferences on ‘severity of health’ as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities. Soc Sci Med 2009; 68(12): 2247–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Baker AD, Bassran A, Paterson-Brown S. Opinions of patients and the public regarding NHS priorities. Scott Med J 2001; 46(5): 140–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. The person trade-off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting. Health Econ 2003; 12(6): 505–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of health changes. J Health Econ 2004; 23(6): 1101–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chan HM, Cheung GM, Yip AK. Selection criteria for recipients of scarce donor livers: a public opinion survey in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2006; 12(1): 40–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Werner P. Israeli lay persons’ views on priority-setting criteria for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Expect 2009; 12(2): 187–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bleichrodt H, Pinto Prades JL. New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement. Health Econ 2009; 18(6): 713–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of healthcare interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2009; 18(8): 951–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Friedman SM, Schofield L, Tirkos S. Do as I say, not as I do: a survey of public impressions of queue-jumping and preferential access. Eur J Emerg Med 2007; 14(5): 260–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mossialos E, King D. Citizens and rationing: analysis of a European survey. Health Policy 1999; 49(1-2): 75–135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Prades JL. Life-saving treatments and disabilities: are all QALYs created equal? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(4): 738–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ubel PA. How stable are people’s preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med 1999; 49(7): 895–903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Anand P, Wailoo A. Utilities versus rights to publicly provided goods: arguments and evidence from health care rationing. Economica 2000; 67(268): 543–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ubel PA, Baron J, Nash B, et al. Are preferences for equity over efficiency in health care allocation “all or nothing”? Med Care 2000; 38(4): 366–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J, et al. Allocation of transplantable organs: do people want to punish patients for causing their illness? Liver Transpl 2001; 7(7): 600–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ubel PA, Baron J, Asch DA. Preference for equity as a framing effect. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(3): 180–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fortes PA, Zoboli EL. A study on the ethics of micro-allocation of scarce resources in health care. J Med Ethics 2002; 28(4): 266–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Beach MC, Asch DA, Jepson C, et al. Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs in clinical decisions. Med Decis Making 2003; 23(5): 369–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Edwards RT, Boland A, Wilkinson C, et al. Clinical and lay preferences for the explicit prioritisation of elective waiting lists: survey evidence from Wales. Health Policy 2003; 63(3): 229–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. Do NHS clinicians and members of the public share the same views about reducing inequalities in health? Soc Sci Med 2007; 64(12): 2499–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kasemsup V, Schommer JC, Cline RR, et al. Citizen’s preferences regarding principles to guide health-care al-location decisions in Thailand. Value Health 2008; 11(7): 1194–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dolan P, Shaw R. A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneys. Health Policy 2004; 68(1): 31–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism. Health Econ 2009; 18(2): 147–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lenaghan J. Involving the public in rationing decisions: the experience of citizens juries. Health Policy 1999; 49(1–2): 45–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Dolan P, Cookson R. A qualitative study of the extent to which health gain matters when choosing between groups of patients. Health Policy 2000; 51(1): 19–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Costa-Font J, Rovira J. Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the ‘willingness to assign’ approach. Appl Econ 2005; 37(14): 1571–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Guttman N, Shalev C, Kaplan G, et al. What should be given a priority: costly medications for relatively few people or inexpensive ones for many? The Health Parliament public consultation initiative in Israel. Health Expect 2008; 11(2): 177–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects. J Health Econ 2005; 24(4): 703–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. PBAC submission to the review of health technology assessment in Australia. Canberra (ACT): Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 2009

  72. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map. Australia: health policy decision process. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/AustraliaHP.asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  73. Medical devices regulations basics. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/devices-basics.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  74. How therapeutic goods are regulated in Australia. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/industry/ basics-regulation.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  75. Morgan SG, McMahon M, Mitton C, et al. Centralized drug review processes in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Health Aff 2006; 25(2): 337–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Healy J, Sharman E, Lokuge B. Australia: health system review [Health Systems in Transition]. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Care Systems, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/ 96433/E89731.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  77. Haas M, Viney R, Gallego G. Implementing guidelines for reimbursement in Australia: how the PBAC & MSAC use comparative cost-effectiveness. Sydney (NSW): Centre for Health Economics (CHERE)/University of Technology Sydney, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hpm.org/Downloads/Symposium_Krakau/Marion_ Haas_Australia.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jan 7]

  78. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Out-comes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: Australia. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PE guidelines/countrydet.asp?c=1&t=2 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  79. PBAC outcomes by meeting. Recommendations made by the PBAC: March 2010. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/ internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacrec-mar10 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  80. Department of Health and Ageing. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) — December 2008, version 4.3. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ pbacguidelines-index [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  81. Department of Health and Ageing. Alternative arrangements for medicines: other supply arrangements outside the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/ lsdp-info [Accessed 2011 Jun 1

    Google Scholar 

  82. Department of Health and Ageing. The review of the life saving drugs program. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/in ternet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/lsdp-info/$File/LSD Preview.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  83. Department of Health and Ageing. About the PBS: how do drugs get on the scheme? Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/ internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-pbs-phbenbir.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun

    Google Scholar 

  84. Department of Health and Ageing. Updated (22 April 2005) questions and answers on new pricing and listing arrangements for generic medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/ internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/C96C6E1108952858 CA25732B0048D611/$File/qa22april.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  85. Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS): continuation rules for PBS-listed drugs. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub lishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-continuation_rules. htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  86. Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS): the impact of PBS reform. Report to the Parliament. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub lishing.nsf/Content/pbs-reform-report [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  87. Department of Health and Ageing. Advisory Committee on Prescription Medicines (ACPM). Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing. Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tga.gov.au/about/ committees-acpm.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  88. Department of Health and Ageing. Current MSAC membership. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/con tent/current-membership-1 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  89. Department of Health and Ageing. Part 1: roles and responsibilities of the PBAC. In: 1995 guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Con tent/health-pbs-general-pubs-guidelines-part1.htm#role [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  90. Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) membership. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ health-pbs-general-listing-committee3.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  91. Department of Health and Ageing. PBAC outcomes explained. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub lishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-general-outcomes.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  92. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, et al. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q 2009; 87(2): 339–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Raftery JP. Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand. Med J Aust 2008; 188(1): 26–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Cleemput I, van WP, Huybrechts M, et al. Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: toward standardization of drug reimbursement requests. Value Health 2009; 12(4): 441–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Vinck I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Introduction of emerging medical devices on the market: a new procedure in Belgium. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(4): 449–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Habl C, Antony K, Arts D, et al. Surveying, assessing and analysing the pharmaceutical sector in the 25 EU member states: country profiles. Vienna: European Commission, Osterreichisches Bundesinstitut fur Gesundheitswesen (OBIG), 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://ec. europa.eu/competition/mergers/studies_reports/oebig.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  97. Health care systems in transition: Belgium. Brussels: European Observatory on Health Care Systems, 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/ _data/assets/pdf_file/0003/75126/E71203.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  98. Corens D. Belgium: health system review. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Care Systems, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2007. Health Sys in Transition 2007; 9 (2) [online]. Available from URL: http://www. euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/96442/E90059. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  99. Denis A, Simoens S, Christel F, et al. Belgium. In: Policies for rare diseases and orphan drugs [KCE reports 112C]. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2009: 35–44 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.kce. fgov.be/Download.aspx?ID=2161 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  100. Giacomini M. How good is good enough? Standards in policy decisions to cover new health technologies. Healthc Policy 2007; 3(2): 91–101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Whyte K. PHARMAC not funding some treatments for rare, life-threatening diseases: bosentan as an example. NZ Med J 2005; 118(1226): U1759

    Google Scholar 

  102. Manning J, Paterson R. “Prioritization”: rationing health care in New Zealand. J Law Med Ethics 2005; 33(4): 681–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. O’Donnell JL, Smyth D, Frampton C. Prioritizing healthcare funding. Intern Med J 2005; 35(7): 409–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. National Health Committee. Decision-making about new health interventions. Wellington: National Health Committee, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. nhc.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexcm/nhc-new-health-inter ventions [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  105. National Health Committee. District health board decision-making about new health interventions: a background paper. Wellington: National Health Committee, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nhc.health. govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/667/$File/dhb-decisions-new-health-background-paper.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  106. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Medicines strategy: submission on consultation document: ‘Towards a medicines strategy’. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac. govt.nz/2009/10/12/Consumer%20Participation%20Discus sion.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  107. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Guidelines for funding applications to PHARMAC. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2009/12/23/2009-12-23%20-%20 PHARMAC%20notification%20of%20final%20Applica tion%20Guidelines.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  108. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Operating policies and procedures of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency (‘PHARMAC’). 3rd ed. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2005/12/22/231205.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  109. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Section H of the pharmaceutical schedule (hospital pharmaceuticals). Wellington: PHARMAC, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/Schedule/SectionH [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  110. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Online pharmaceutical schedule. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.phar mac.govt.nz/Schedule [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  111. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/ 2007/06/19/PFPAFinal.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  112. Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). Scope of analysis. In: Prescription for pharmacoeconomic analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis. Draft. Version 2. Wellington: PHARMAC, 2006: 19–25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2006/07/ 31/PFPAv2.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  113. Grocott R, Metcalfe S. Going against the flow: The impact of PHARMAC not funding COX-2 inhibitors for chronic arthritis. N Z Med J 2005; 118(1223): U1690

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Martinussen PE, Hagen TP. Reimbursement systems, organisational forms and patient selection: evidence from day surgery in Norway. Health Econ Policy Law 2009; 4 (Pt 2): 139–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Norwegian Medicines Agency. Norwegian guidelines for pharmacoeconomic analysis in connection with applications for reimbursement. Oslo: Statens legemiddelverk/ Norwegian Medicines Agency, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.legemiddelverket.no/templates/ InterPage____25644.aspx [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  116. Norwegian Medicines Agency. Application standard for acceptance to the drug reimbursement scheme; pursuant to Article 9 of the regulation on reimbursement of crucial drug costs. Oslo: Statens legemiddelverk/Norwegian Medicines Agency, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.legemiddelverket.no/templates/InterPage__ 25665.aspx [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  117. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement information: Norway. Pharma profile: October 2008. Vienna: PPRI, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://ppri.oebig.at/ Downloads/Results/Norway_PPRI_2008.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  118. Garner S. How decisions on the use of medicines and medical devices are made. Pharmaceutical J 2005; 275(7364): 254–6

    Google Scholar 

  119. nternational Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Scotland. Reimbursement process. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Scotland.asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  120. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: Scotland. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PE guidelines/countrydet.asp?c=19&t=2 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  121. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Templates/guidance for submission. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottish medicines.org.uk/Submission_Process/Submission_Guid ance_and_Templates_for_Industry/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission/Templates-Guidance-for-Submission [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  122. NHS Scotland. SMC Evaluation Project Team. An evaluation of how SMC has engaged with its key stakeholders and shaped medicines use across NHS Scotland: summary report. Glasgow: NHS Scotland/Scottish Medicines Consortium, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/SMC_Eval1_FINAL_ lores.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  123. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Submission process [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scottishmedicines. org.uk/smc/22.html [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  124. Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K. A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ 2010 Apr; 11(2): 195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Nygren P, Sandman L. If you are young you get it, but if you are old you are left out: the significance of age for choice of treatment and priorities in cancer care. Lakartidningen 2008; 105(47): 3417–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Jansson S. Implementing accountability for reasonableness: the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden. Health Econ Policy Law 2007; 2 (Pt 2): 153–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Faulkner E, Matuszewski K, Niziol C. ISPOR global health care systems road map: Sweden. Lawrenceville (NJ): International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Sweden. asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  128. Anell A, Persson U. Reimbursement and clinical guidance for pharmaceuticals in Sweden: do health-economic evaluations support decision making? Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6(3): 274–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. The Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Reimbursement review. Stockholm: Tandvards Och Lakemedelsformansverket (TLV), 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tlv.se/ in-english/reimbursement-review/ [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  130. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency [formerly the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board]. Working guidelines for the pharmaceutical reimbursement review. Stockholm: Tandvards-Och Lakemedelsformansverket (TLV), 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. tlv.se/Upload/Genomgangen/guidelines-pharmaceutical-reimbursement.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  131. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Welcome to TLV. Stockholm: Tandvards-Och Lakemedelsformansverket (TLV), 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. tlv.se/in-english-old/in-english/ [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  132. The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. Reimbursement review. Stockholm: Tandvards-Och Lakemedelsformansverket (TLV), 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.tlv.se/in-english-old/medicines-new/reimb ursement-review/ [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  133. The Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Guidelines for companies: the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN). Stockholm: Lakemedelsformansnamnden (LFN), 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-Companies.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  134. Sorenson C. The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decisions: a cross-country comparison. Euro Observer: the Health Policy Bulletin of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies 2009; 11(1): 1–12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0019/80335/EuroObserver_spring2009.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  135. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General and Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. Pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement information: Sweden. Pharma profile, final version, June 2007. Vienna: Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI), 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://ppri.oebig.at/Downloads/Results/Sweden_P PRI_2007.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  136. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising treatments which may extend life, at the end of life. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/ endoflifetreatments.jsp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  137. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. Independent review process (IR). Vale of Glamorgan: All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/Independent %20Review%20process%20_fina%20for%20website_.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  138. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. Structure of appraisal. Vale of Glamorgan: All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/Guidelines%20for% 20appraising%20medicines.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  139. All Wales Medicines Strategy Group. Vale of Glamorgan: Welsh Medicines Partnership, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/home.cfm? orgid=371 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  140. Healy P, Pugatch M. Theory versus practice: discussing the governance of health technology assessment systems. Stockholm: Stockholm Network, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/pub lications/Theory_versus_Practice.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  141. Stolk EA, de BA, van Halteren AR, et al. Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in the Netherlands. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2009; 9(1): 85–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Bozic KJ. Health policy and practice management issues in orthopaedic surgery: editorial comment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 457: 2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Niezen M, de BA, Stolk E, et al. Conditional reimbursement within the Dutch drug policy. Health Policy 2007; 84(1): 39–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Stolk EA, Rutten FF. The “health benefit basket” in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 2005 Dec; Suppl.: 53–7

    Google Scholar 

  145. Stolk EA, Poley MJ. Criteria for determining a basic health services package: recent developments in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6(1): 2–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Postma MJ. Public health economics of vaccines in the Netherlands: methodological issues and applications. J Public Health 2008; 16(4): 267–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. de Bont A, Zandwijken G, Stolk E, et al. Prioritisation by physicians in the Netherlands: the growth hormone example in drug reimbursement decisions. Health Policy 2007; 80(3): 369–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in health care: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union [European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Observatory Studies Series No. 11]. Copenhagen: WHO, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  149. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map: the Netherlands. Reimbursement process. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadMaps/Netherlands.asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  150. Postma TJ, Alers JC, Terpstra S, et al. Medical technology decisions in the Netherlands: how to solve the dilemma of technology foresight versus market research? Technol Forecast Soc Change 2007; 74: 1823–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Schafer W, Kroneman M, Boerma W, et al. The Netherlands: health system review [Health Systems in Transition]. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Care Systems, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.euro.who.int/en/home/ projects/observatory/publications/health-system-profiles-hits/full-list-of-hits/netherlands-hit-2010 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  152. Akkerman AE, Kuyvenhoven MM, Verheij TJ, et al. Antibiotics in Dutch general practice: nationwide electronic GP database and national reimbursement rates. Pharma-coepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17(4): 378–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. de Wolf P, Brouwer WB, Rutten FF. Regulating the Dutch pharmaceutical market: improving efficiency or controlling costs? Int J Health Plann Manage 2005; 20(4): 351–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. van Nooten F, van Agthoven M. Mandatory pharmaco-economic studies in the Dutch reimbursement setting. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) Newsletter 2005; 3 (1 May): 1–3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.imta.nl/publications/imta_newsletter_ 3_1.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  155. Peters A. Dutch health insurance recommends conditional reimbursement of Januvia and Procoralan. APM Health Europe 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. apmhealtheurope.com/story.php?mots=PROCORALAN& searchScope=1&searchType=0&numero=L7697 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  156. Chalkidou K. Comparative effectiveness review within the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2009; 59: 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  157. Karnon J, Carlton J, Czoski-Murray C, et al. Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling: is lack of data a surmountable barrier? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2009; 7(1): 1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Mason AR, Drummond MF. Public funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE getting nastier? Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(7): 1188–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Parrish A, Blockman M. Clinical excellence and the NIC-Eties of value-based priority setting. S Afr Med J 2008; 98(10): 758, 760–61

    Google Scholar 

  160. Syrett K. NICE and judicial review: enforcing ‘accountability for reasonableness’ through the courts? Med Law Rev 2008; 16(1): 127–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Williams IP, Bryan S. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: findings from research. Soc Sci Med 2007; 65(10): 2116–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Summerhayes M, Catchpole P. Has NICE been nice to cancer? Eur J Cancer 2006; 42(17): 2881–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Supporting rational local decision-making about medicines (and treatments): a handbook of good practice guidance. 1st ed. Liverpool (UK): National Prescribing Centre, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medlaw.eu/ nhs_guidance/NHS_handbook_complete.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  164. Useful sources of information for area prescribing and medicines management committees (APCs). Liverpool: National Prescribing Centre, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.npc.co.uk/local_decision_making/ resources/apc_guide_resources.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  165. Defining guiding principles for processes supporting local decision making about medicines. Final report. Liverpool: National Prescribing Centre, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medlaw.eu/nhs_guidance/ Medlaw-DH_Defining_Guiding_Principles_for_Processes_ supporting_Local_Decision_Making_about_Medicines_ Report.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  166. Reeve S. Directions to primary care trusts and NHS trusts concerning decisions about drugs and other treatments 2009. London: Department of Health, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsand statistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_096067 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  167. Brambleby P, Jackson A, Muir Gray JA. Programme-based decision-making for better value healthcare: second annual population value review. Oxford (UK): NHS National Knowledge Service, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.childrenstrustcommissioning.com/cs/ media/p/1641.aspx [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  168. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map: United Kingdom. Diagnostics. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. ispor.org/htaroadmaps/UKDiagnostics.asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  169. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR global health care systems road map: United Kingdom (England and Wales). Reimbursemment process. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/htaroadmaps/ UK.asp [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  170. Financing medical devices in Europe: executive summary. Belgium: The European Health Technology Institute for Socio-Economic Research (EHTI), 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.together4healthinnovation. eu/uploads/Executive%20Summary%20Topic%20I%20 Financing%20Medical%20Devices%20in%20Europe.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  171. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world: British Medical Journal. Lawrenceville (NJ): ISPOR, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. ispor.org/PEguidelines/countrydet.asp?c=4&t=2 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  172. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Single technology appraisal (STA): specification for manufacturer/ sponsor submission of evidence. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/ 59C/B3/SpecificationForManufacturerSponsorSubmission EvidenceJune2010.doc [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  173. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/913/06/Guide_to_the_STA-proof_6-26-10-09.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  174. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the multiple technology appraisal process. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice. org.uk/media/916/6B/Guide_to_the_MTA-proof_8-26-10-09. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  175. McCabe C, Chilcott J, Claxton K, et al. Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified. BMJ 2010; 340: c1786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. nice.org.uk/media/E4A/79/SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  177. Jackson TJ. Health technology assessment in Australia: challenges ahead. Med J Aust 2007; 187(5): 262–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Department of Health and Ageing. The Allen Consulting Group: description of selected health technology assessment processes. Chapter 5: linkages between TGA, MSAC and PDC. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/in ternet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/allenreport_TOC∼ allenreport-ch5 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  179. Department of Health and Ageing. The Allen Consulting Group: description of selected health technology assessment processes. Chapter 1: overview of health technology assessment. Canberra (ACT): Government of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/allenreport_TOC≈allenreport-ch1 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  180. Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Information paper: new health technologies, medical devices and prostheses. Canberra (ACT): Consumers Health Forum of Australia, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. chf.org.au/pdfs/cns/cns-462-new-health-technologies.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  181. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/ Content/D81BE529B98B3DB6CA2575AD0082FD1B/ $File/guidelines.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  182. Economics section of the MSAC guidelines. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/in ternet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/D81BE529B98B3DB 6CA2575AD0082FD1B/$File/Economics%20Glines%20-%20FINAL%20at%20Aug%202008%20-%20endorsed%20 MSAC%20ESC%20June%202009.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  183. Medical Services Advisory Committee performance report 2008–09. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/ 9FD4C2646B76FA43CA25768F00221A26/$File/MSAC_ Performance%20_Report_2008–09.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  184. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra (ACT): Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/ internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/D81BE529B98B3D B6CA2575AD0082FD1B/$File/Diag%20Guidelines%20Sept %202005%20updated%2021%20may%202007.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  185. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing. Proposal for changes to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) processes for applications for public funding. 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/content/ home-1/$File/MSAC%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  186. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of trastuzumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer [Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 34]. London: NICE, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/advancedbreastcancerno34PDF. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  187. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appeal by Aventis against guidance on taxanes for breast cancer. London: NICE, 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action= article&r=true&o=32042 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  188. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraisal of the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. Decision of the appeal panel, May 2000. London: NICE, 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/oldsite/appraisals/tax_appeal.htm [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  189. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determination (FAD): bevacizumab (Avastin) and cetuximab (Erbitux) for metastatic colorectal cancer [letter from Bowel Cancer UK & Cancerbackup]. London: NICE, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11611/33913/33913.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  190. Bowel Cancer UK response to NICE [e-mail to Emily Marschke, 5 September, 2006]. London: Bowel Cancer UK, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ nicemedia/live/11611/33881/33881.pdf [Accessed 2011Jun10]

  191. Joshi VK. Final appraisal determination (FAD) appeal by the Mouth Cancer Foundation [letter]. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/live/11697/36815/36815.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  192. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Advice on lapatinib for the treatment of women with previously treated advanced or metastatic breast cancer. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ni cemedia/live/11902/40342/40342.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  193. GlaxoSmithKline. Re: Appeal by GlaxoSmithKline Limited in respect of the final appraisal determination for lapatinib for the treatment of women with previously treated advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Middlesex: GSK, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nice media/live/11731/44499/44499.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  194. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Bevacizumab (first-line), sorafenib (first and second-line), sunitinib (second-line) and temsirolimus (first-line) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. London: NICE, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/RenalCellCar cinomaAppealDecision.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  195. Roche Products Limited. Notice of appeal by Roche Products Limited: bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimus for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11817/44833/ 44833.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  196. James Whale Fund for Kidney Cancer. Appeal against the final appraisal determination document: bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib (second-line) and temsirolimus for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cambridge: James Whale Fund for Kidney Cancer, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice. org.uk/nicemedia/live/11817/44843/44843.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  197. Notice of appeal: final appraisal determination regarding Nexavar. Bayer HealthCare/Bayer Schering Pharma, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ni-cemedia/live/12019/47562/47562.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  198. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. London: NICE, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12019/48943/48943. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  199. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Appraisal of the use of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: decision of the Appeal Panel. London: NICE, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11440/32260/32260. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  200. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Appraisal of the use of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: decision of the Appeal Panel. London: NICE, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nice media/live/11521/32795/32795.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  201. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Advice on adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after failure of a previous TNF-α inhibitor (sequential use). London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/ pdf/RheumatoidArthritisAdalimumabAppealPanelDecision. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun

    Google Scholar 

  202. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA): appeal to NICE [letter]. London: ARMA, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11902/ 42176/42176.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  203. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal determination: adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after failure of a previous TNF-α inhibitor. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice. org.uk/nicemedia/live/11902/41284/41284.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  204. National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society. NRAS appeal against final appraisal document sequential use of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of RA. Maidenhead: NRAS, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11902/42181/ 42181.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  205. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/ live/11680/38603/38603.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  206. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Health technology appraisal: appeal hearing. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nice media/live/11704/38602/38602.pdf[Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  207. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Osteoporosis: primary prevention. Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. London: NICE, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA160 [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  208. Appeal takes place against NICE osteoporosis decision which restricts access to effective medicines and puts patients at unnecessary risk of fracture. Medical News Today 2007 Oct 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86327.php [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

  209. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Background briefing: outcome of judicial review. London: NICE, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11600/36563/36563.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  210. Kmietowicz Z. NICE hears appeals over dementia drugs. BMJ 2006; 333(7560): 165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  211. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appeal from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Geriatrics Society regarding the NICE final appraisal document: donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease [letter]. London: NICE, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/PDF/AlzletterNice0606. pdf [Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

  212. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraisal of the use of human growth hormone for the treatment of adults with growth hormone deficiency: decision of the panel. London: NICE, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/ live/ 11503/37378/37378.pdf[Accessed 2011 Jun 10]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a New Emerging Team grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Deborah Marshall consults for i3 Innovus on research in health economics. The authors wish to thank Leigh-Ann Topfer for her assistance with information searches and retrieval.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 8308-114 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2V2, Canada

    Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon

  2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Deborah Marshall

  3. Health Law Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield

Authors
  1. Tania Stafinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Devidas Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy Caulfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania Stafinski.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stafinski, T., Menon, D., Marshall, D. et al. Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 4, 207–225 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11588880-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation