The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies

被引:6
作者
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali [1 ]
Street, Jackie [2 ]
Merlin, Tracy [3 ]
Karnon, Jonathan [1 ]
机构
[1] Flinders Univ S Australia, Coll Med & Publ Hlth, Bedford Pk, SA 5042, Australia
[2] Univ Wollongong, Sch Hlth & Soc, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
[3] Univ Adelaide, Sch Publ Hlth, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
关键词
Health technology assessment; Public values; Decision making; Australia;
D O I
10.1017/S0266462320002238
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4]. Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, INFLUENCE COST EFFEC
[2]  
Australian Governemnet, CONS EV ENG UN
[3]  
Australian Governemnet, HTA CONS CONS COMM
[4]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2019, HLTH EXP AUSTR 2017
[5]   Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee [J].
Carter, Drew ;
Vogan, Arlene ;
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali .
APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY, 2016, 14 (04) :401-407
[6]  
Davies C.Wetherell., 2005, Opening the Box: evaluating the Citizens' Council of NICE, Report prepared for the National Co-ordinating Centre for research Methodology
[7]   QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature [J].
Dolan, P ;
Shaw, R ;
Tsuchiya, A ;
Williams, A .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2005, 14 (02) :197-208
[8]   Are the benefits of new health services greater than their opportunity costs? [J].
Edney, Laura ;
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali ;
Karnon, Jonathan .
AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2019, 43 (05) :508-510
[9]   Estimating the Reference Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio for the Australian Health System [J].
Edney, Laura Catherine ;
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali ;
Cheng, Terence Chai ;
Karnon, Jonathan .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2018, 36 (02) :239-252
[10]   Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent [J].
Gu, Yuanyuan ;
Lancsar, Emily ;
Ghijben, Peter ;
Butler, James R. G. ;
Donaldson, Cam .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2015, 146 :41-52