Accounting for Technical, Ethical, and Political Factors in Priority Setting

REFERENCES

• Lasswell HD. Politics: who gets what, when, how. New York: Whittlesey House; 1936.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts M, Hsiao W, Berman P, Reich M. Getting health reform right: a guide to improving performance and equity. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Bump JB, Reich MR, Johnson AM. Diarrhoeal diseases and the global health agenda: measuring and changing priority. Health Policy Plan 2012; 28(8): 799-808.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilson L, Erasmus E, Borghi J, Macha J, Kamuzora P, Mtei G. Using stakeholder analysis to support moves towards universal coverage: lessons from the SHIELD project. Health Policy Plan 2012; 27(Suppl 1): i64-i76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiffman J, Beer T, Wu Y. The emergence of global disease control priorities. Health Policy Plan 2002; 17(3): 225-234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich MR. The politics of agenda setting in international health: child health versus adult health in developing countries. J Int Dev 1995; 7(3): 489-502.
   Google Scholar
• Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Nicod E, van den Aardweg S, Pomedli, S. The impact of health technology assessments: an international comparison. Euro Observer: Health Policy Bull Eur Observ Health Syst Policies 2010; 12(4): 1-17.
   Google Scholar
• Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329(7459): 224-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kieslich K. Paradigms in operation: pharmaceutical benefit assessments in England and Germany. 2015. Available at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1463556/1/PhD_Thesis_K_Kieslich_17.03.2015.pdf (accessed 23 September 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Daniels N. Health-care needs and distributive justice. Philos Public Aff 1981; 10(2): 146-177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels N. Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Kamm FM. Equal treatment and equal chances. Philos Public Aff 1985; 14(2): 177-194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams A. Ethics and efficiency in the provision of health care. In: Philosophy and medical welfare, Bell M, Mendus S, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988; 111-126.
   Google Scholar
• Menzel PT. Strong medicine. The ethical rationing of medical care. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Norheim OF. Clinical priority setting. BMJ 2008; 337(7675): a1846.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brock D, Wikler D. Ethical issues in resource allocation, research, and new product development. In: Disease control priorities in developing countries, 2nd ed., Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, Prabhat J, Mills A, Musgrove P, eds. New York: Oxford University Press and The World Bank; 2006; 259-270.
   Google Scholar
• Norheim OF, Baltussen R, Johri M, Chisholm D, Nord E, Brock DW, Carlsson P, Cookson R, Daniels N, Danis M, et al. Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2014; 12: 18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. 2014. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112671/1/9789241507158_eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 23 September 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Rawls J. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Holm S. The second phase of priority setting. Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care. BMJ 1998; 317(7164): 1000-1002.
   Google Scholar
• Norheim OF. Healthcare rationing—are additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines? BMJ 1999; 319(7222): 1426-1429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: learning to share resources for health, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels N. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Reichenbach L. The politics of priority setting for reproductive health: breast and cervical cancer in Ghana. Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10(20): 47-58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich MR. The politics of health sector reform in developing countries: three cases of pharmaceutical policy. Health Policy 1995; 32(1–3): 47-77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob L, Marmor T, Oberlander J. The Oregon health plan and the political paradox of rationing: what advocates and critics have claimed and what Oregon did. J Health Polit Policy Law 1999; 24(1): 161-180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein R, Redmayne S. Patterns of priorities. A study of the purchasing and rationing policies of health authorities. Bath: University of Bath, Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. Managing scarcity. Priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Ham C. Tragic choices in health care: lessons from the child B case. BMJ 1999; 319(7219): 1258-1261.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mossialos E, Walley T, Mrazek M. Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: an overview. In: Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency, equity and quality, Mossialos E, Mrazek M, Walley T, eds. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004; 1-38.
   Google Scholar
• Walker P, Batty D. Patients protest after kidney cancer drugs rejected. 2008. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/aug/27/health.cancer (accessed 20 July 2014)
   Google Scholar
• Klein R. Dimensions of rationing: who should do what? BMJ 1993; 307(6899): 309-11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chamberlain C, Hollingworth W. Where is the evidence for the existence of the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ 2014; 349: g5901.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teerawattananon Y, Tritasavit N, Suchonwanich N, and Kingkaew P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2014; 108(7): 397-404.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Medicines Policy Committee. National list of essential medicines, B.E. 2556 (A.D. 2013). Bangkok, Thailand: National Medicines Policy Committee; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Information Center. Adverse drug reactions. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn Hospital; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Mohara A, Youngkong S, Velasco RP, Werayingyong P, Pachanee K, Prakongsai P, Tantivess S, Tangcharoensathien V, Lertiendumrong J, Jongudomsuk P, et al. Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1(2): 137-146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thailand Association for the Study of Pain. Clinical practice guideline for neuropathic pain. Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Association for the Study of Pain; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• The Epilepsy Society of Thailand. Clinical practice guidelines for epilepsy. Bangkok, Thailand: The Epilepsy Society of Thailand; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Lim K, Kwan P, Tan C. Association of HLA-B*1502 allele and carbamazepine induced severe adverse cutaneous drug reaction among Asians, a review. Neurol Asia 2008; 13(1): 15-21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rattanavipapong W, Koopitakkajorn T, Praditsitthikorn N, Mahasirimongkol S, Teerawattananon Y. Economic evaluation of HLA-B*1502 screening for carbamazepine-induced severe adverse drug reactions in Thailand. Epilepsia 2013; 54(9): 1628-1638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subcommittee for Benefit Package Development. Meeting minutes, 19 November 2014. Nonthaburi, Thailand: National Health Security Office; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Tantivess S, Pérez Velasco R, Yothasamut J, Mohara A, Limprayoonyong H, Teerawattananon Y. Efficiency or equity? Value judgments in coverage decisions in Thailand. J Health Organ Manag 2012; 26(3): 331-342.
   Google Scholar
• National Health Security Act. B.E. 2545 (A.D. 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Tantivess S. Social and ethical analysis in health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thailand 2014; 97(5): S81-S86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. What is universal health coverage? 2015. Available at http://www.who.int/health_financing/universal_coverage_definition/en/ (accessed 21 August 2015)
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The world health report 2000—health systems: improving performance. Geneva: The World Health Organization; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf   (accessed 16 November 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Rid A, Littlejohns P, Wilson J, Rumbold B, Kieslich K, Weale A. The importance of being NICE. J R Soc Med 2015; 108(10): 385-389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2 (accessed 28 October 2015)
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. The Cancer Drugs Fund. 2015. Available at http://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf/ (accessed 1   October 2015).
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office. Investigation into the Cancer Drugs Fund. 2015. Available at https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Investigation-into-the-Cancer-Drugs-Fund1.pdf (accessed 28 October 2015)
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. Future of the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). 2015. Available at https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/item-8-cancer-drug-fund.pdf (accessed 27 October 2015)
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. Cancer Drugs Fund consultation. 2015. Available at https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/cdf-consultation (accessed 19 November 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Jack A. Which way now for the Cancer Drugs Fund? BMJ 2014; 349(7974): g5524.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The Cancer Drugs Fund—benign or malignant? The Economist; 2015. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/21640343/print (accessed 25 August 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health and Prime Minister's Office. Prime Minister announces £400 million package to boost research and treatment for cancer, and a new partnership to help map genomes [Press release]. 28 September 2013. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-patients-to-benefit-from-400-million-cancer-package (accessed 27 August 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher J. Labour pledges cancer therapy fund. 2014. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30385594 (accessed   29 October 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Cook C. NHS England push to rein in cancer drug prices. 2014. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28938022 (accessed 28 August 2015)
   Google Scholar
• Health and Social Care Act 2012 ( 2012).
   Google Scholar