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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health policy (Amsterdam) 2007-11, Vol.84 (1), p.58-66
Main Authors: Gallego, Gisselle, Taylor, Susan Joyce, Brien, Jo-anne Elizabeth
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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