Littlejohns, P, Weale, A, Chalkidou, K, Faden, R, Teerawattananon, Y. Social values and health policy: A new international research programme. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26:285–292.
Daniels, N, Sabin, JE. Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources? New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.
Engelhardt, HT Jr. Confronting moral pluralism in posttraditional western societies: Bioethics critically reassessed. J Med Philos. 2011;36:243–260.
Rothstein, B. Creating political legitimacy electoral democracy versus quality of government. Am Behav Sci. 2009;53:311–330.
Prasad, V, Mailankody, S. The UK Cancer Drugs Fund Experiment and the US Cancer Drug Cost Problem: Bearing the cost of cancer drugs until it is unbearable. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:707–712.
Linley, WG, Hughes, DA. Societal views on nice, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: A cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22: 948–964.
Mayor, S. New “managed access” process for cancer drugs fund to go ahead, NHS England confirms. BMJ. 2016;352:i1208.
Sibbald, SL, Singer, PA, Upshur, R, Martin, DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:43.
Smith, N, Mitton, C, Hall, W, et al.
High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context. Soc Sci Med. 2016;162:185–192.
Degeling, C, Carter, SM, Rychetnik, L. Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114–121.
Wortley, S, Tong, A, Howard, K. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: A nominal group technique with members of the public. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010265.
Green, C, Gerard, K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951–976.
Australian Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee. Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government; 2015.
Gallego, G, Taylor, SJ, Brien, JA. Priority setting for high cost medications (HCMs) in public hospitals in Australia: A case study. Health Policy. 2007;84:58–66.
Martin, DK, Giacomini, M, Singer, PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279–290.
MacKenzie, R, Chapman, S, Salkeld, G, Holding, S. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: Application of the rule of rescue?
J R Soc Med. 2008;101:305–312.
Gabe, J, Chamberlain, K, Norris, P, et al.
The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of 'countervailing powers. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:2353–2361.
Fenton, E. Making fair funding decisions for high cost cancer care: The case of herceptin in New Zealand. Public Health Ethics. 2010;3:137–146.
Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1990.
Boon, WPC, Moors, EHM, Meijer, A, Schellekens, H. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88:848–853.
Fujiwara, Y. Evolution of frameworks for expediting access to new drugs in Japan. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15:293–294.
Kim, C, Prasad, V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: An analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. JAMA Int Med. 2015;175:1992–1994.
Lewis, JRR, Kerridge, I, Lipworth, W. Coverage with evidence development and managed entry in the funding of personalized medicine: Practical and ethical challenges for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:4112–4117.