Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:19:26.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTITUDES TOWARD SUPPLEMENTARY CRITERIA IN THE REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS IN POLAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Katarzyna Kolasa ,
Lieven Annemans  and
Michael Lees
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 443 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych (AhTAPoL). www.aotm.gov.pl (accessed December 20, 1010).Google Scholar
2.Eichler, H-G, Kong, SX, Gerth, WC, Mavros, P, Jönsson, B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: How are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health. 2004;7:518–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Laufer, F. Thresholds in cost-effectiveness analysis—More of the story. Value Health. 2005;8:86–87.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Rawlins, MD, Culyer, AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;328:224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Weinstein, MC, Stason, WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Johanesson, M, Gerdthamn, U. A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy. 1995;33:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Dolan, P, Shaw, R, Tsuchiya, A, Williams, A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14:197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Jones-Lee, MW. Altruism and the value of other people's safety. J Risk Uncertain. 1991;4:213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Dolan, P, Edlin, R, Tschuiya, A. Relative value of social health gains to different beneficiers. RM03/JH11, January 2008. http://www.haps2.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/methodology/docs/publications/JH11_Social_Value_QALY_Final_Report_Paul_Dolan_et_al_2008.pdf (accessed October 15, 2011).Google Scholar
10.Desser, A, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Olsen, JA, Grepperud, S, Kristiansen, IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: Cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:4715–4721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Gulacsi, L, Hajdu, O. Prioritization preferences among general practitioners in Hungary. East European Politics & Societies. 2012;26:20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Johannesson, M, Gerdtham, U. A note on the estimation of the equity-efficiency trade-off for QALYs. J Health Econ. 1996;15:359–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Cookson, R, Dolan, P. Public views on health care rationing: A group discussion study. Health Policy. 1999;49:63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Dolan, P, Cookson, R, Ferguson, B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: Focus group study. BMJ. 1999;318:916–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Emmelin, MAC, Lindholm, LA, Stenlund, HC, Dahlgren, LG. Pol-ethical considerations in public health -The views of Swedish health care politicians. Eur J Public Health. 1999;9:124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Abásolo, I, Tsuchiya, A. Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: An example from inequalities in health. J Health Econ. 2004:23:313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Nord, E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy. 1993;24:227–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Dolan, P. The measurement of individual utility welfare. J Health Econ. 1998;17:39–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Ubel, P. How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:895–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Devlin, N, Parkin, D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13:437–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Harris, A, Hill, S, Chin, G, et al.The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: A retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28;713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Baeten, SA, Baltussen, RM, Uyl-de Groot, CA, Bridges, J, Niessen, LW. Incorporating equity-efficiency interactions in cost-effectiveness analysis-three approaches applied to breast cancer control. Value Health. 2010;13:573–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Banham, D, Lynch, J, Karnon, J. An equity-effectiveness framework linking health programs and healthy life expectancy. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17:309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Martin, DK, Giacomini, M, Singer, PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Rolfe, J, Khorshed, A, Windle, J, Whitten, S. Designing the choice modelling survey instrument for establishing riparian buffers in the Fitzroy Basin, October 2004. Central Queensland University. http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org/html/publications/docs/Fitzroy_RR3.pdf (accessed October 15, 2011).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kolasa et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table 1

Download Kolasa et al. supplementary material(File)
File 46.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kolasa et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table 2

Download Kolasa et al. supplementary material(File)
File 50.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kolasa et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table 3

Download Kolasa et al. supplementary material(File)
File 53.2 KB