IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v85y2008i3p356-362.html

Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Milewa, Timothy

Abstract

Decisions about the availability of publicly funded new drugs, treatments and medical devices are of fundamental interest to patients, health technology manufacturers, clinicians and tax or insurance payers. The issue of who can claim to speak for whom in decisions made on behalf of significant proportions of the population may thus be central to the perceived legitimacy of decision-making procedures. This article focuses on the meaning of representation and legitimacy in relation to such decisions within the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. Interviews with key informants (n = 33) indicate potentially fluid and imprecise aspects of representation and legitimacy that are not necessarily addressed by formal structures for engaging and involving stakeholders in decision-making processes. The findings suggest that those charged with managing bodies such as NICE should adopt a flexible approach to engaging and involving stakeholders. The "representation" of relevant stakeholder constituencies in decision-making procedures is not, however, enough. The legitimacy of decision-making arrangements on behalf of wider society also depends upon transparent reasoned debate that affords different interests the opportunity to challenge, test or advance arguments about evidence in a manner that discounts preconceived ideas about the status and authority of protagonists.

Suggested Citation

  • Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:85:y:2008:i:3:p:356-362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(07)00201-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Culyer, Anthony J., 2006. "NICE's use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 299-318, July.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    3. Gre[ss], Stefan & Niebuhr, Dea & Rothgang, Heinz & Wasem, Jurgen, 2005. "Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care: A comparative perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 78-91, July.
    4. Milewa, Timothy, 2006. "Health technology adoption and the politics of governance in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3102-3112, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brunton, Margaret & Jordan, Claire & Fouche, Christa, 2008. "Managing public health care policy: Who's being forgotten?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 348-358, December.
    2. Tom Tyler & Avital Mentovich & Sagarika Satyavada, 2014. "What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 350-370, September.
    3. Leela Barham, 2011. "Public and Patient Involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, January.
    4. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. World Bank, 2023. "Open and Inclusive," World Bank Publications - Reports 39953, The World Bank Group.

    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. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    4. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Panagiotoglou, Dimitra & Dragojlovic, Nick & Lynd, Larry, 2021. "Methodology for constructing scenarios for health policy research: The case of coverage decision-making for drugs for rare diseases in Canada," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Melanie Levy, 2022. "The rise of the Swiss regulatory healthcare state: On preserving the just in the quest for the better (or less expensive?)," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 427-447, April.
    6. Matthias Benzer, 2020. "NICE and Society: Health Technology Appraisal and the Cultivation of Social Relations," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(2), pages 165-183, June.
    7. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0204187 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    10. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    11. Li, Kathy K. & Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Contandriopoulos, Damien, 2015. "Conceptualizing the use of public involvement in health policy decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 14-21.
    12. Sandy Oliver & David Armes & Gill Gyte, 2009. "Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 179-190, September.
    13. Katharina E. Fischer & Björn Stollenwerk & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2013. "Link between Process and Appraisal in Coverage Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(8), pages 1009-1025, November.
    14. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    15. Bing Wang & Yiwei Lyu, 2023. "Research on the Compilation of a Composite Index from the Perspective of Public Value—The Case of the Global Health Security Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    17. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    18. Ozieranski, Piotr & McKee, Martin & King, Lawrence, 2012. "The politics of health technology assessment in Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 178-193.
    19. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    20. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    21. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:85:y:2008:i:3:p:356-362. 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.