Decision-making in the midst of uncertainty: appraising expensive medicines in England

被引:0
作者
Calnan, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kent, Sch Social Policy Sociol & Social Res, Canterbury CT2 7NF, Kent, England
来源
CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA | 2021年 / 26卷 / 11期
关键词
Technology assessment; Evidence-based medicine; Medical sociology; Uncertainty; HEALTH; CARE; ACCESS; TRUST; COST; RISK; NEED;
D O I
10.1590/1413-812320212611.41872020
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Decisions need to be made about which services or technologies should be prioritized for provision in the NHS in England .The analysis focuses specifically on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and on how they appraise expensive medicines. This analysis takes a sociological perspective on decision -making in relation to uncertainty and how uncertainties are managed, drawing on evidence from a scoping study and an ethnographic study. Uncertainties were central to these rationing decisions. Three types of layers of uncertainty-epistemic, procedural and interpersonal - were shown to be salient. Another form of uncertainty was associated with the complexity of the science and that included the level of technicality of the information provided. The analysis highlighted the salience of uncertainties associated with interpersonal relations and the relations between the committees and the drug industry, clinical and patient experts. A key element in these relationships was trust. Decision makers adopted a mixture of formal and informal, collective and individual strategies in making decisions and a need to exercise pragmatism within a more formal institutional framework. The paper concludes by considering more recent policy developments in relation to appraising expensive medicines.
引用
收藏
页码:5523 / 5531
页数:9
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]  
Abraham J., 2009, NEW SOCIOLOGY HLTH S, P99
[2]   Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries [J].
Angelis, Aris ;
Lange, Ansgar ;
Kanavos, Panos .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2018, 19 (01) :123-152
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, LANCET, V376, P389
[4]   Priority Setting for Universal Health Coverage: We Need Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes, Not Just More Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness [J].
Baltussen, Rob ;
Jansen, Maarten P. ;
Mikkelsen, Evelinn ;
Tromp, Noor ;
Hontelez, Jan ;
Bijlmakers, Leon ;
Van der Wilt, Gert Jan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 5 (11) :615-618
[5]  
Britten N., 2008, Medicines and Society: Patients, Professionals, and the Dominance of Pharmaceuticals
[6]   Trust, regulatory processes and NICE decision-making: Appraising cost-effectiveness models through appraising people and systems [J].
Brown, Patrick ;
Hashem, Ferhana ;
Calnan, Michael .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2016, 46 (01) :87-111
[7]   NICE technology appraisals: working with multiple levels of uncertainty and the potential for bias [J].
Brown, Patrick ;
Calnan, Michael .
MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2013, 16 (02) :281-293
[8]   Braving a faceless new world? Conceptualizing trust in the pharmaceutical industry and its products [J].
Brown, Patrick ;
Calnan, Michael .
HEALTH, 2012, 16 (01) :57-75
[9]   Political accountability of explicit rationing: legitimacy problems faced by NICE [J].
Brown, Patrick ;
Calnan, Michael .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY, 2010, 15 (02) :65-66
[10]   Pills, power, people: Sociological understandings of the pharmaceutical industry [J].
Busfield, J .
SOCIOLOGY-THE JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 2006, 40 (02) :297-314