Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers.

Fairness is a key goal of priority setting and 'accountability for reasonableness' has emerged as the leading framework for fair priority setting. However, it has not been shown acceptable to those engaged in priority setting. In particular, since it was developed in the context of a primarily privately funded health system, its applicability in a primarily publicly funded system is uncertain. In this paper, we describe elements of fairness identified by decision-makers engaged in priority setting for new technologies in Canada (a primarily publicly funded system). According to these decision makers, accountability for reasonableness is acceptable and applicable. Our findings also provide refinements to accountability for reasonableness.

[1]  F. Townsend New horizons , 1943 .

[2]  S. Goold Allocating health care: cost-utility analysis, informed democratic decision making, or the veil of ignorance? , 1996, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[3]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

[4]  R. Klein,et al.  Dimensions of rationing: who should do what? , 1993, BMJ.

[5]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  D F Thompson,et al.  Understanding financial conflicts of interest. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  J. Haldane,et al.  Philosophy and Public Affairs , 2000 .

[8]  R. Steinbrook Allocating livers--devising a fair system. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

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

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

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

[12]  Angela Coulter,et al.  The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing , 2000 .

[13]  M. Osborne,et al.  Ethics of allocating intensive care unit resources. , 1997, New horizons.

[14]  L. Doyal,et al.  The rationing debate: Rationing within the NHS should be explicit: The case for , 1997 .

[15]  Douglas K. Martin,et al.  Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study , 2001, The Lancet.

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

[17]  B. New,et al.  Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries? , 1996, BMJ.

[18]  D. Callahan Controlling the costs of health care for the elderly--fair means and foul. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[20]  C. Ham,et al.  Tragic Choices in Health Care: The Case of Child B , 1998 .

[21]  D. Stone Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making , 1997 .

[22]  D. Mechanic Dilemmas in rationing health care services: the case for implicit rationing , 1995, BMJ.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  A. Krasnik The Concept of Equity in Health Services Research , 1996, Scandinavian journal of social medicine.