Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Supporting tough decisions in Norway: A healthcare system approach

  • Berit Mørland (a1), Ånen Ringard (a1) and John-Arne Røttingen (a1)

Abstract

Objectives: We describe, in general, the principles used in priority setting and, in particular, policy processes and decision making in Norway.

Methods: A newly established council for setting priorities in health care is presented to illustrate how health technology assessments (HTAs) can support national advisors in complex priority-setting processes.

Results and Conclusions: Setting priorities in health care is a complex task. Careful thinking is, therefore, required in determining the components of a system for priority-setting. Based on recent Norwegian experiences, we believe that the following generic parts may provide some of the solution: a common set of values; an organizational structure made up of key stakeholders; supporting mechanisms in the form of HTA organizations and documented best evidence; and loyalty to decisions by stakeholders responsible for implementing national policies.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Banta, D. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):79.
2. Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Setting limits fairly: Learning to share resources for health. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
3. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.
4. Garrido, MV, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2008.
5. Ham, C. The 2009 budget and the NHS – Doctors need to be fully engaged in saving money and improving outcomes.Br Med J. 2009;338:10241025.
6. Ham, C, Robert, G. Reasonable rationing: International experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003.
7. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Nasjonal helseplan (2007-2010). (National health plan. In Norwegian.) Særtrykk av St.prp.nr.1 (2006-2007) kapittel 6. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 2006.
8. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Mandat for Nasjonalt råd for kvalitet og prioritering i helsetjenesten. (Mandate for the National Council for Quality Improvement and Priority Setting in Health Care. In Norwegian.) http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/R%C3%A5det/Mandat (accessed May 5, 2010).
9. Johanson, KA, Miljeteig, I, Norheim, OF. Høykostnadsmedisin – mangler vi åpne og legitime prosedyrer for prioritering? (High cost medicine – do we lack open and legitimate processes for prioritisation? In Norwegian.) Tidskr Nor Lægeforen. 2009;129:1720.
10. Kitzhaber, J. Rationing in action: Prioritising health services in an era of limits: The Oregon experience. Br Med J. 1993;307:373377.
11. Maddern, G. Globalisation and HTAi – Issues and needs in relation to HTA. 6th Annual Meeting HTAI, Singapore; 2009.
12. Mørland, B. The history of health technology assessment in Norway. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):148155.
13. Nasjonalt råd for kvalitet og prioritering i helsetjenesten. Innføring av HPV-vaksine i det nasjonale vaksinasjonsprogrammet. Datert 26. mars 2008. http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/Saker/12152.cms. Lest 4. mai 2010.
14. Norges offentlige utredninger. Retningslinjer for prioritering innen Norsk helsetjeneste. NOU 1987: 23. (Guidelines for prioritisation in Norwegian health care. In Norwegian.) Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 1987.
15. Norges offentlige utredninger. Prioritering på ny. Gjennomgang av retningslinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste. (Prioritisation again. Evaluation of guidelines for prioritisation in Norwegian health care. In Norwegian.) NOU 1997:18. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste; 1997.
16. Norheim, OF. Norway. Reasonable rationing. International experience of priority setting in health care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press; 2003.
17. Nye og kostnadskrevende metoder. Forslag til håndtering av ny teknologi i helsetjenesten. (New and costly methods. Suggestion for handling new technology in health care. In Norwegian.) Rapport IS-13. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2009.
18. OECD. Health at a glance 2009: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/health/healthataglancedx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2009-en (accessed December 8, 2009).
19. Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, Bouter, LM. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessments in the Netherlands: Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226236.
20. Spongberg, UW, Ringard, Å. Meeting rising public expectations: The changing role of patients and citizens. In: Magnussen, J, Vrangbæk, K, Saltman, RB, eds. Nordic health care systems—Recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill; 2009.
21. Swedish Parliamentary Priorities Commission. Priorities in health care: Ethics, economy, implementation. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and Social affairs; 1995.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed