International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Lonely at the Top and Stuck in the Middle? The Ongoing Challenge of Using Cost-Effectiveness Information in Priority Setting; Comment on “Use of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors
Iestyn Williams 1
Stirling Bryan 2
1 Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
2 Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital Research Pavilion, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
10.15171/ijhpm.2015.32
Abstract
The topic of how cost-effectiveness information informs priority setting in healthcare remains important to both policy and practice. This commentary considers the study carried out by Eckard and colleagues in Sweden. In it we distinguish between the conditions at national and local levels and put forward some recommendations for research into local priority setting in particular.
Keywords
Priority Setting
Economic Evaluation
Decision-Making
Healthcare
Technology Coverage
Subjects
  1. Eckard N, Janzon M, Levin L. Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden. Int J Health Policy Manag 2015; 3: 323-332. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.105
  2. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technology Assessment 2008; 12: 1-193. doi: 10.3310/hta12070
  3. Erntoft S. Pharmaceutical priority setting and the use of economic evaluation: a systematic literature review. Value Health 2011; 14: 587-99.  doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.036
  4. Silva ML, Spath HM, Perrier L, Moumjid N. The use of economic evaluation in health decision making at the macro level: a literature review. Journal de Gestion et D’Economie Medicales 2013; 31: 72. doi: 10.3917/jgem.131.0031
  5. Checkland K, Harrison S, Marshall M. Is the metaphor of ‘barriers to change’ useful in understanding implementation? Evidence from general medical practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007; 12: 95-100. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279657
  6. Bryan S, Williams I. Adoption of New Technologies, Using Economic Evaluation. Encyclopedia of Health Economics; 2014. p. 26-31.
  7. Williams I, Bryan S. Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: a conceptual framework. Health Policy 2007; 80: 135-43. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.03.006
  8. Klein R. Dimensions of rationing: who should do what? BMJ 1993; 307: 309-11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6899.309
  9. Williams, I. Institutions and health care rationing: the example of health care coverage in the English National Health Service. Policy Polit 2013; 41: 223-9. doi: 10.1332/030557312X655477
  10. Brouselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72: 832-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.008
  11. Rousseau DM. In there such a thing as evidence-based management? Acad Manage J 2006; 31: 256-69. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.20208679

  • Received Date 23 January 2015
  • Revised Date 11 February 2015
  • Accepted Date 11 February 2015
  • First Published Date 01 March 2015
  • Published Date 01 March 2015