Accounting for reasonableness: Exploring the personal internal framework affecting decisions about cancer drug funding
Objectives Drug decision-makers are involved in developing and implementing policy, procedure and processes to support health resource allocation regarding drug treatment formularies. A variety of approaches to decision-making, including formal decision-making frameworks, have been developed to support transparent and fair priority setting. Recently, a decision tool, 'The 6-STEPPPs Tool', was developed to assist in making decisions about new cancer drugs within the public health care system.Methods We conducted a qualitative study, utilizing focus groups and participant observation, in order to investigate the internal frameworks that supported and challenged individual participants as they applied this decision tool within a multi-stakeholder decision process.Results We discovered that health care resource allocation engaged not only the minds of decision-makers but profoundly called on the often conflicting values of the heart.Conclusions Objective decision-making frameworks for new drug therapies need to consider the subjective internal frameworks of decision-makers that affect decisions. Understanding the very human, internal turmoil experienced by individuals involved in health care resource allocation, sheds additional insight into how to account for reasonableness and how to better support difficult decisions through transparent, values-based resource allocation policy, procedures and processes.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Martin, Douglas K. & Giacomini, Mita & Singer, Peter A., 2002. "Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 279-290, September.
- Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Who cares about cost? Does economic analysis impose or reflect social values?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 79-94, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:86:y:2008:i:2-3:p:381-390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)or ()
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.