The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study

被引:2
作者
Lambert, Robyn [1 ]
Carter, Drew [2 ]
Burgess, Naomi [1 ]
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali [3 ]
机构
[1] SA Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Sch Publ Hlth, Adelaide Hlth Technol Assessment, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[3] Univ Adelaide, Sch Publ Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
decision making; health care rationing; health priorities; health services research; organisational case studies; resource allocation; DECISION-MAKING; ECONOMIC-EVALUATION; RESOURCE-ALLOCATION; PUBLIC HOSPITALS; ENOUGH; NEED;
D O I
10.1002/hpm.2529
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
Objectives State governments often face capped budgets that can restrict expenditure on health technologies and their evaluation, yet many technologies are introduced to practice through state-funded institutions such as hospitals, rather than through national evaluation mechanisms. This research aimed to identify the criteria, evidence, and standards used by South Australian committee members to recommend funding for high-cost health technologies. Methods We undertook 8 semi-structured interviews and 2 meeting observations with members of state-wide committees that have a mandate to consider the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-cost health technologies. Results Safety and effectiveness were fundamental criteria for decision makers, who were also concerned with increasing consistency in care and equitable access to technologies. Committee members often consider evidence that is limited in quantity and quality; however, they perceive evaluations to be rigorous and sufficient for decision making. Precise standards for safety, effective, and cost-effectiveness could not be identified. Conclusions Consideration of new technologies at the state level is grounded in the desire to improve health outcomes and equity of access for patients. High quality evidence is often limited. The impact funding decisions have on population health is unclear due to limited use of cost-effectiveness analysis and unclear cost-effectiveness standards.
引用
收藏
页码:806 / 822
页数:17
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Should the Lambda (λ) Remain Silent? [J].
Afzali, Hossein Haji Ali ;
Karnon, Jonathan ;
Sculpher, Mark .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2016, 34 (04) :323-329
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2016, CLIN PATHW
[3]  
Australian Government: Department of Health, 2014, PRINT VERS PBAC GUID
[4]  
Australian Government: Department of Health, 2016, PUBL
[5]   Adaptive decision-making: how Australian healthcare managers decide [J].
Baghbanian, Abdolvahab ;
Hughes, Ian ;
Kebriaei, Ali ;
Khavarpour, Freidoon A. .
AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2012, 36 (01) :49-56
[6]   Resource allocation and economic evaluation in Australia's healthcare system [J].
Baghbanian, Abdolvahab ;
Hughes, Ian ;
Khavarpour, Freidoon A. .
AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2011, 35 (03) :278-283
[7]  
Braun V., 2006, QUAL RES PSYCHOL, V3, P77, DOI [10.1191/1478088706qp063oa, DOI 10.1191/1478088706QP063OA]
[8]   PROMISE AND PLAUSIBILITY: HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS WITH LIMITED EVIDENCE [J].
Campbell, Bruce ;
Knox, Paul .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2016, 32 (03) :122-125
[9]   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
[10]   Accountability for reasonableness - Establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles [J].
Daniels, N .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7272) :1300-1301