Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Value congruence in health care priority setting: social values, institutions and decisions in three countries

  • Claudia Landwehr (a1) and Dorothea Klinnert (a1)
Abstract

Most developed democracies have faced the challenge of priority setting in health care by setting up specialized agencies to take decisions on which medical services to include in public health baskets. Under the influence of Daniels and Sabin’s seminal work on the topic, agencies increasingly aim to fulfil criteria of procedural justice, such as accountability and transparency. We assume, however, that the institutional design of agencies also and necessarily reflects substantial value judgments on the respective weight of distributive principles such as efficiency, need and equality. The public acceptance of prioritization decisions, and eventually of the health care system at large, will ultimately depend not only on considerations of procedural fairness, but also on the congruence between a society’s values and its institutions. We study social values, institutions and decisions in three countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) in order to assess such congruence and formulate expectations on its effects.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: Prof. Claudia Landwehr, Department of Political Science, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany. Email: landwehr@politik.uni-mainz.de
References
Hide All
Bayer, K. (2007), Argument und Argumentation: Logische Grundlagen der Argumentationsanalyse, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Biron, L., Rumbold, B. and Faden, R. (2012), ‘‘Social value judgments in healthcare: a philosophical critique’’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(3): 317330.
Böhm, K., Landwehr, C. and Steiner, N. (2014), ‘What explains ‘‘generosity’’ in the public financing of high-tech drugs?’, Journal of European Social Policy, 24(1): 3955.
Clarke, S. and Weale, A. (2012), ‘Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(3): 293316.
Culyer, A. J. and Wagstaff, A. (1993), ‘Equity and equality in health and health care’, Journal of Health Economics, 12: 431457.
Daniels, N. (2008), Just Health. Meeting Health Needs Fairly, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, N. and Sabin, J. E. (1997), ‘Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insures’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26(4): 303350.
DoH (2013), The NHS Constitution for England, London: Department of Health.
HAS (2011), Rapport d’activité 2011 de la Commission de la Transparence, Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex: Haute Autorité de Santé.
Holm, S. (2000), ‘Developments in the Nordic countries – goodbye to the simple solutions’, in A. Coulter and C. Ham (eds), The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing, Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2937.
ISSP (2011), International Social Survey Programme: Health – ISSP 2011. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne.
Landwehr, C. and Böhm, K. (2011), ‘Delegation and institutional design in health care rationing’, Governance, 24(4): 665688.
Liesching, F., Meyer, T. and Raspe, H. (2012), ‘The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media’, Zeitschrfit für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen (ZEFQ), 106(6): 396.
Littlejohns, P., Sharma, T. and Jeong, K. (2012), ‘Social values and health priority setting in England: “values” based decision making’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(3): 363371.
Littlejohns, P., Yeung, K., Clark, S. and Weale, A. (2012), ‘A proposal for a new social values research program and policy network’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(3): 407421.
Miller, D. (1999), Principles of Social Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moe, T. M. (2005), ‘Power and political institutions’, Perspectives on Politics, 3(2): 215233.
Nord, E. (1999), Cost Value Analysis in Health Care: Making Sense out of QALYs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NHS (2005), Directions and consolidating directions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2005, London: NHS.
NICE (2008), Social Value Judgements. Principles for the Development of NICE Guidance, London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
OECD (2014), Health Statistics, online database.
Roemer, J. E. (1995), ‘Equality and responsibility’, Boston Review, 20(2): 37.
Schmidt, V. A. (2013), ‘Democracy and legitimacy in the european union revisited: input, output and ‘‘throughput’’’, Political Studies, 61(1): 222.
Sen, A. (2002), ‘Why health equity?’, Health Economics, 11: 659666.
Wikler, D. (2004), ‘Personal and social responsibility for health’, in S. Anand, F. Peter, A. Sen (eds), Public Health, Equity and Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107133.
Zimmermann, C. (2012), ‘Der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss: Normsetzung durch Richtlinien sowie Integration neuer Untersuchungs-und Behandlungsmethoden in den Leistungskatalog der GKV’, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

France: Haute Autorité de Santé

CT-4154, Champix (Varenicline), 23.08.2007.
CT-5270, Torisel (Temsirolimus), 06.02.2008.
CT-5952, Ebixa (Memantine), 26.11.2008.
CT-6739, Forsteo (Teriparatide), 22.07.2009.
CT-9411, Herceptin (Trastuzumab, cancer gastrique métastatique), 16.02.2011.
CT-11948, Tysabri (Natalizumab), 29.02.2012.
FJC 17.09.2009: Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Einleitung eines Stellungnahmeverfahrens zur Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage XI – Besondere Arzneimittel, Besondere Arzneimittel nach §73d SGB V bei der Behandlung des metastasierten und/oder fortgeschrittenen Nierenzellkarzinoms: Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Temsirolimus.
FJC 10.08.2010: Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Einleitung eines Stellungnahmeverfahrens zur Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage III – Übersicht der Verordnungseinschränkungen und –ausschlüsse (Memantine).
FCJ 18.08.2011: Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Nichtänderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage III – Übersicht der Verordnungseinschränkungen und –ausschlüsse (Memantine).
FCJ 16.10.2008: Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie in Anlage 4: Therapiehinweis zu Natalizumab.
FCJ 09.04.2009: Bekanntmachung eines Beschlusses des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie in Anlage 4: Therapiehinweis zu Natalizumab.
NICE-TA 123, Varenicline for smoking cessation, 25.07.2007.
NICE-TA 127, Natalizumab for the treatment of adults with highly active relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis.
NICE-TA 161, Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women.
NICE-TA 178, Bevacizumab (first-line), sorafenib (first- and second-line), sunitinib (second-line) and temsirolimus (first-line) for the treatment of advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, 26.08.2009.
NICE-TA 208, Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer, 24.11.2010.
NICE-TA 217, Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, 23.11.2011.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 128 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 605 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.