Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study

Abstract Objective: To describe priority setting for new technologies in medicine. Design: Qualitative study using case studies and grounded theory. Setting: Two committees advising on priorities for new technologies in cancer and cardiac care in Ontario, Canada. Participants: The two committees and their 26 members. Main outcome measures: Accounts of priority setting decision making gathered by reviewing documents, interviewing members, and observing meetings. Results: Six interrelated domains were identified for priority setting for new technologies in medicine: the institutions in which the decision are made, the people who make the decisions, the factors they consider, the reasons for the decisions, the process of decision making, and the appeals mechanism for challenging the decisions. Conclusion: These domains constitute a model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine. The next step will be to harmonise this description of how priority setting decisions are made with ethical accounts of how they should be made.

[1]  C. Ham.  Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the Child B case , 1999, BMJ.

[2]  N. Daniels,et al.  The ethics of accountability in managed care reform. , 1998, Health affairs.

[3]  P. Singer.  Resource allocation: beyond evidence-based medicine and cost-effectiveness analysis. , 1997, ACP journal club.

[4]  J. Newhouse,et al.  Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? , 1992, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[5]  S Holm,et al.  The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. , 1998, BMJ.

[6]  S. Harrison.  Managing Scarcity: Priority Setting and Rationing in the National Health Service , 1996 .

[7]  N. Daniels,et al.  Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. , 1997, Philosophy & public affairs.

[8]  A. Chapple,et al.  Barriers to referral in patients with angina: qualitative study. , 1999, BMJ.

[9]  R. Crisp,et al.  Rationing and the health authority , 1998, BMJ.

[10]  R. Foy,et al.  Perspectives of commissioners and cancer specialists in prioritising new cancer drugs: impact of the evidence threshold , 1999, BMJ.

[11]  C Ham,et al.  Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. , 1997, Health policy.

[12]  F. Wollheim.  Priorities in Health Care , 1996 .

[13]  Sabin,et al.  The second phase of priority setting , 1998, BMJ.

[14]  Pamela Jordan.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[15]  N. Daniels,et al.  Last chance therapies and managed care. Pluralism, fair procedures, and legitimacy. , 1998, The Hastings Center report.

[16]  Iona Heath,et al.  Managing Scarcity: Priority Setting and Rationing in the National Health Service , 1997 .