IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v119y2015i2p147-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests

Author

Listed:
  • Rogowski, Wolf H.
  • Schleidgen, Sebastian

Abstract

Given the multitude of newly available genetic tests in the face of limited healthcare budgets, the European Society of Human Genetics assessed how genetic services can be prioritized fairly. Using (health) benefit maximizing frameworks for this purpose has been criticized on the grounds that rather than maximization, fairness requires meeting claims (e.g. based on medical need) equitably. This study develops a prioritization score for genetic tests to facilitate equitable allocation based on need-based claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Rogowski, Wolf H. & Schleidgen, Sebastian, 2015. "Using needs-based frameworks for evaluating new technologies: An application to genetic tests," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 147-155.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:2:p:147-155
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851014003054
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xavier Cuadras‐Morató & José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2001. "Equity considerations in health care: the relevance of claims," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 187-205, April.
    2. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    3. Alan Williams, 1997. "Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the ‘Fair Innings’ Argument," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 117-132, March.
    4. Stolk, Elly A. & Pickee, Stefan J. & Ament, Andre H.J.A. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2005. "Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 343-355, November.
    5. Rogowski, Wolf, 2007. "Current impact of gene technology on healthcare: A map of economic assessments," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 340-357, February.
    6. Richard Cookson, 2005. "QALYs and the capability approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 817-829, August.
    7. Golan, Ofra & Hansen, Paul & Kaplan, Giora & Tal, Orna, 2011. "Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 126-135.
    8. Wolf H. Rogowski, 2009. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Hereditary Hemochromatosis in Germany: A Remodeling Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 224-238, March.
    9. Severin, Franziska & Hess, Wolfgang & Schmidtke, Jörg & Mühlbacher, Axel & Rogowski, Wolf, 2015. "Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 164-173.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Severin, Franziska & Hess, Wolfgang & Schmidtke, Jörg & Mühlbacher, Axel & Rogowski, Wolf, 2015. "Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 164-173.
    2. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Capabilities as menus: A non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 128-137.
    3. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Fernando Antoñanzas & R. Rodríguez-Ibeas & M. Hutter & R. Lorente & C. Juárez & M. Pinillos, 2012. "Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 651-661, October.
    5. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    6. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    7. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    8. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    9. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    10. E. Wetering & E. Stolk & N. Exel & W. Brouwer, 2013. "Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 107-115, February.
    11. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    12. Carlota Quintal, 2009. "Aversion to geographic inequality and geographic variation in preferences in the context of healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 121-136, June.
    13. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    14. Stolk, Elly A. & Pickee, Stefan J. & Ament, Andre H.J.A. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2005. "Equity in health care prioritisation: An empirical inquiry into social value," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 343-355, November.
    15. Richard Smith & Paula Lorgelly & Hareth Al-Janabi & Sridhar Venkatapuram & Joanna Coast, 2012. "The Capability Approach: An Alternative Evaluation Paradigm for Health Economics?," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 39, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. McKie, John & Richardson, Jeff, 2017. "Social preferences for prioritizing the treatment of severely ill patients: The relevance of severity, expected benefit, past health and lifetime health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 913-922.
    17. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    18. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    19. Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Maximisation in extra-welfarism: A critique of the current position in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 786-792, September.
    20. Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis & Sánchez-Martínez, Fernando-Ignacio & Corbacho, Belen & Baker, Rachel, 2014. "Valuing QALYs at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 5-14.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:2:p:147-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.