A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair

被引:63
作者
Ottersen, Trygve [1 ]
Forde, Reidun [2 ]
Kakad, Meetali [3 ]
Kjellevold, Alice [4 ]
Melberg, Hans Olav [5 ]
Moen, Atle [6 ]
Ringard, Anen [7 ]
Norheim, Ole Frithjof [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bergen, Dept Global Publ Hlth & Primary Care, POB 7804, N-5018 Bergen, Norway
[2] Univ Oslo, Ctr Med Eth, POB 1130, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
[3] South Eastern Norway Reg Hlth Author, Dept Technol & EHlth, POB 404, N-2303 Hamar, Norway
[4] Univ Stavanger, Dept Hlth Sci, N-4036 Stavanger, Norway
[5] Univ Oslo, Dept Hlth Management & Hlth Econ, POB 1089 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
[6] Oslo Univ Hosp, Dept Neonatol, POB 4950, N-0424 Oslo, Norway
[7] Akershus Univ Hosp, POB 1000, N-1478 Lerenskog, Norway
关键词
Health policy; Health care reform; Ethics; Social justice; Politics; Jurisprudence; Economics; Evidence-based medicine; Patient participation; Health care rationing; HEALTH-CARE; QALYS;
D O I
10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.01.012
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
Health systems worldwide struggle to meet increasing demands for health care, and Norway is no exception. This paper discusses the new, comprehensive framework for priority setting recently laid out by the third Norwegian Committee on Priority Setting in the Health Sector. The framework posits that priority setting should pursue the goal of "the greatest number of healthy life years for all, fairly distributed" and centres on three criteria: 1) The health-benefit criterion: The priority of an intervention increases with the expected health benefit (and other relevant welfare benefits) from the intervention; 2) The resource criterion: The priority of an intervention increases, the less resources it requires; and 3) The health-loss criterion: The priority of an intervention increases with the expected lifetime health loss of the beneficiary in the absence of such an intervention. Cost-effectiveness plays a central role in this framework, but only alongside the health-loss criterion which incorporates a special concern for the worse off and promotes fairness. In line with this, cost-effectiveness thresholds are differentiated according to health loss. Concrete implementation tools and open processes with user participation complement the three criteria. Informed by the proposal, the Ministry of Health and Care Services is preparing a report to the Parliament, with the aim of reaching political consensus on a new priority-setting framework for Norway. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:246 / 251
页数:6
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, GUID METH TECHN APPR
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1987, RETNINGSLINJER PRIOR, P23
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2014, OFF NORW REP DEP SIK, V2014, P12
[4]   Priority-setting in health policy in Sweden and a comparison with Norway [J].
Calltorp, J .
HEALTH POLICY, 1999, 50 (1-2) :1-22
[5]   Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold [J].
Claxton, Karl ;
Martin, Steve ;
Soares, Marta ;
Rice, Nigel ;
Spackman, Eldon ;
Hinde, Sebastian ;
Devlin, Nancy ;
Smith, Peter C. ;
Sculpher, Mark .
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 19 (14) :1-+
[6]   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
[7]   Can the Real Opportunity Cost Stand Up: Displaced Services, the Straw Man Outside the Room [J].
Eckermann, Simon ;
Pekarsky, Brita .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2014, 32 (04) :319-325
[8]   Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience [J].
Ham, C .
HEALTH POLICY, 1997, 42 (01) :49-66
[9]   Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care [J].
Holm, S .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 317 (7164) :1000-1002
[10]  
Ivarsflaten E, NORWEGIAN CITIZEN PA