Loading…
Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study
Abstract Health care providers (HCPs) are increasingly aware of pressures on funding for health care services, including high cost medicines (HCMs). Allocating resources to innovative and expensive medications is particularly challenging and the decision-making processes and criteria used to allocat...
Saved in:
Published in: | Health policy (Amsterdam) 2007-11, Vol.84 (1), p.58-66 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53 |
container_end_page | 66 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 58 |
container_title | Health policy (Amsterdam) |
container_volume | 84 |
creator | Gallego, Gisselle Taylor, Susan Joyce Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth |
description | Abstract Health care providers (HCPs) are increasingly aware of pressures on funding for health care services, including high cost medicines (HCMs). Allocating resources to innovative and expensive medications is particularly challenging and the decision-making processes and criteria used to allocate resources to HCMs have not been widely described in the literature. This case study aimed to describe the operations of the first reported High Cost Drug Sub-Committee (HCD-SC) in a public hospital in Australia. In addition the study also evaluated the decision-making process using Daniel and Sabin's ethical framework of “accountability for reasonableness”. Some lessons emerged from the description of the operations of the HCD-SC. Decisions were not solely based on effectiveness and cost. Additional factors such as “clinical need” and the lack of an alternative treatment were involved in decisions about access to HCMs. Members of the HCD-SC also considered it was important to have consistency in the way decisions were being made. The findings from this study provide an evidence base for developing strategies to improve this hospital's decision-making process regarding access to HCMs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.008 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68355750</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0168851007001236</els_id><sourcerecordid>36732086</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2LEzEUhgdR3Lr6FzRXohetJ0nzUS-EUtQKKwrqdUwzZ3ZSp5PZJLMw_97UlhW8WS_eGQjPezjwnKp6QWFBgco3-0WLtsvtELoFA1ALEAsA_aCaUa3YXIJYPqxmhdRzLShcVE9S2kMBOZePqwuqJNUAq1n182v0Ifo8kYQ5-_6aNCGS1l-3xIWUyQFr72z2oU_k1XbzOb0mvifDuOu8I21Ig8-2S8e39ZhytJ23b8maOJuQpDzW09PqUVMIfHb-X1Y_Prz_vtnOr758_LRZX83dUso8r2vGQFjBdnKlYEXVjmlouGsaaSWlwJsVr6nSVmEtUAukrpGq4ZbrpYad4JfVy9PcIYabEVM2B58cdp3tMYzJSM2FUALuBYVinDKl7wW5VJyBlgVUJ9DFkFLExgzRH2ycDAVz1GX25k6XOeoyIEzRVZrbUzPigO6uhogtFtabW8OtXpbPVPKnya0voSVDidBGStPmQxn1_LztuCvS_q5wVl2A9QnAYuHWYzTJeexdERzRZVMH_x_7vvtnhut8Xw6k-4UTpn0YY18kG2oSM2C-HQ_weH-gACjjkv8GHcfXPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>36732086</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Gallego, Gisselle ; Taylor, Susan Joyce ; Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Gallego, Gisselle ; Taylor, Susan Joyce ; Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Health care providers (HCPs) are increasingly aware of pressures on funding for health care services, including high cost medicines (HCMs). Allocating resources to innovative and expensive medications is particularly challenging and the decision-making processes and criteria used to allocate resources to HCMs have not been widely described in the literature. This case study aimed to describe the operations of the first reported High Cost Drug Sub-Committee (HCD-SC) in a public hospital in Australia. In addition the study also evaluated the decision-making process using Daniel and Sabin's ethical framework of “accountability for reasonableness”. Some lessons emerged from the description of the operations of the HCD-SC. Decisions were not solely based on effectiveness and cost. Additional factors such as “clinical need” and the lack of an alternative treatment were involved in decisions about access to HCMs. Members of the HCD-SC also considered it was important to have consistency in the way decisions were being made. The findings from this study provide an evidence base for developing strategies to improve this hospital's decision-making process regarding access to HCMs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-8510</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6054</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17618009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Australia ; Case study ; Costs ; Decision Making ; Health administration ; Health care ; Health costs ; Health Priorities ; Hospitals ; Hospitals, Public ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Interviews as Topic ; National Health Programs - economics ; New South Wales ; Organizational Case Studies ; Patients ; Pharmaceutical Preparations - economics ; Pharmaceuticals ; Pharmaceuticals Decision-making Case study Australia ; Prescriptions ; Public health care ; Resource allocation</subject><ispartof>Health policy (Amsterdam), 2007-11, Vol.84 (1), p.58-66</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,30977,33201</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17618009$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeehepoli/v_3a84_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a58-66.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gallego, Gisselle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Susan Joyce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study</title><title>Health policy (Amsterdam)</title><addtitle>Health Policy</addtitle><description>Abstract Health care providers (HCPs) are increasingly aware of pressures on funding for health care services, including high cost medicines (HCMs). Allocating resources to innovative and expensive medications is particularly challenging and the decision-making processes and criteria used to allocate resources to HCMs have not been widely described in the literature. This case study aimed to describe the operations of the first reported High Cost Drug Sub-Committee (HCD-SC) in a public hospital in Australia. In addition the study also evaluated the decision-making process using Daniel and Sabin's ethical framework of “accountability for reasonableness”. Some lessons emerged from the description of the operations of the HCD-SC. Decisions were not solely based on effectiveness and cost. Additional factors such as “clinical need” and the lack of an alternative treatment were involved in decisions about access to HCMs. Members of the HCD-SC also considered it was important to have consistency in the way decisions were being made. The findings from this study provide an evidence base for developing strategies to improve this hospital's decision-making process regarding access to HCMs.</description><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Case study</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health costs</subject><subject>Health Priorities</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hospitals, Public</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>National Health Programs - economics</subject><subject>New South Wales</subject><subject>Organizational Case Studies</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Preparations - economics</subject><subject>Pharmaceuticals</subject><subject>Pharmaceuticals Decision-making Case study Australia</subject><subject>Prescriptions</subject><subject>Public health care</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><issn>0168-8510</issn><issn>1872-6054</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2LEzEUhgdR3Lr6FzRXohetJ0nzUS-EUtQKKwrqdUwzZ3ZSp5PZJLMw_97UlhW8WS_eGQjPezjwnKp6QWFBgco3-0WLtsvtELoFA1ALEAsA_aCaUa3YXIJYPqxmhdRzLShcVE9S2kMBOZePqwuqJNUAq1n182v0Ifo8kYQ5-_6aNCGS1l-3xIWUyQFr72z2oU_k1XbzOb0mvifDuOu8I21Ig8-2S8e39ZhytJ23b8maOJuQpDzW09PqUVMIfHb-X1Y_Prz_vtnOr758_LRZX83dUso8r2vGQFjBdnKlYEXVjmlouGsaaSWlwJsVr6nSVmEtUAukrpGq4ZbrpYad4JfVy9PcIYabEVM2B58cdp3tMYzJSM2FUALuBYVinDKl7wW5VJyBlgVUJ9DFkFLExgzRH2ycDAVz1GX25k6XOeoyIEzRVZrbUzPigO6uhogtFtabW8OtXpbPVPKnya0voSVDidBGStPmQxn1_LztuCvS_q5wVl2A9QnAYuHWYzTJeexdERzRZVMH_x_7vvtnhut8Xw6k-4UTpn0YY18kG2oSM2C-HQ_weH-gACjjkv8GHcfXPg</recordid><startdate>200711</startdate><enddate>200711</enddate><creator>Gallego, Gisselle</creator><creator>Taylor, Susan Joyce</creator><creator>Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200711</creationdate><title>Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study</title><author>Gallego, Gisselle ; Taylor, Susan Joyce ; Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Case study</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health costs</topic><topic>Health Priorities</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hospitals, Public</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>National Health Programs - economics</topic><topic>New South Wales</topic><topic>Organizational Case Studies</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Preparations - economics</topic><topic>Pharmaceuticals</topic><topic>Pharmaceuticals Decision-making Case study Australia</topic><topic>Prescriptions</topic><topic>Public health care</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gallego, Gisselle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Susan Joyce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health policy (Amsterdam)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gallego, Gisselle</au><au>Taylor, Susan Joyce</au><au>Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study</atitle><jtitle>Health policy (Amsterdam)</jtitle><addtitle>Health Policy</addtitle><date>2007-11</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>58</spage><epage>66</epage><pages>58-66</pages><issn>0168-8510</issn><eissn>1872-6054</eissn><abstract>Abstract Health care providers (HCPs) are increasingly aware of pressures on funding for health care services, including high cost medicines (HCMs). Allocating resources to innovative and expensive medications is particularly challenging and the decision-making processes and criteria used to allocate resources to HCMs have not been widely described in the literature. This case study aimed to describe the operations of the first reported High Cost Drug Sub-Committee (HCD-SC) in a public hospital in Australia. In addition the study also evaluated the decision-making process using Daniel and Sabin's ethical framework of “accountability for reasonableness”. Some lessons emerged from the description of the operations of the HCD-SC. Decisions were not solely based on effectiveness and cost. Additional factors such as “clinical need” and the lack of an alternative treatment were involved in decisions about access to HCMs. Members of the HCD-SC also considered it was important to have consistency in the way decisions were being made. The findings from this study provide an evidence base for developing strategies to improve this hospital's decision-making process regarding access to HCMs.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>17618009</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.008</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0168-8510 |
ispartof | Health policy (Amsterdam), 2007-11, Vol.84 (1), p.58-66 |
issn | 0168-8510 1872-6054 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68355750 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ScienceDirect Freedom Collection |
subjects | Australia Case study Costs Decision Making Health administration Health care Health costs Health Priorities Hospitals Hospitals, Public Humans Internal Medicine Interviews as Topic National Health Programs - economics New South Wales Organizational Case Studies Patients Pharmaceutical Preparations - economics Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Decision-making Case study Australia Prescriptions Public health care Resource allocation |
title | Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-23T03%3A13%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Priority%20setting%20for%20high%20cost%20medications%20(HCMs)%20in%20public%20hospitals%20in%20Australia:%20A%20case%20study&rft.jtitle=Health%20policy%20(Amsterdam)&rft.au=Gallego,%20Gisselle&rft.date=2007-11&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=58&rft.epage=66&rft.pages=58-66&rft.issn=0168-8510&rft.eissn=1872-6054&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.05.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36732086%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-dd2205a52b6970917b280f3cff6a61103f93d178a7ed5e85e1cf67f3a38480b53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=36732086&rft_id=info:pmid/17618009&rfr_iscdi=true |