The Oregon Priority-Setting Process

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-157
Author(s):  
David C. Hadorn
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Setting Process

Implementing accountability for reasonableness – the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDRA JANSSON
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Social Learning ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
A Priority

AbstractThis paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the ‘principally important’ decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.

scholarly journals Major constraints and trends for common bean production and commercialization; establishing priorities for future research

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesús José Rodríguez De Luque ◽  
Bernardo Creamer
Keyword(s):  
Common Bean ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Production And Distribution ◽  
Use Efficiency ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Bean Research

In order to identify the principal constraints and trends for common bean production and commercialization and the priorities for future common bean research in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), a priority setting process was developed at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). The results suggested that the principal research included breeding and selecting for several traits, such as drought tolerance and water use efficiency, improved yields, and consumer acceptance (improved cooking time and desired texture after cooking). Additionally, the results of the priority setting process suggested that institutional measures are needed, such as improving formal seed production and distribution channels and the development of national and regional seed policies. On the other hand, the identified principal constraints included diseases, pests, and market constraints. Finally, the identified principal trends were: increase in demand and production, and development of high-yield varieties and improvement in nutritional quality.

scholarly journals Selecting topic areas for developing quality standards in a resource-limited setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000491
Author(s):  
Roongnapa Khampang ◽  
Sarayuth Khuntha ◽  
Phorntida Hadnorntun ◽  
Suthasinee Kumluang ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Stakeholder Consultation ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
Setting Process

Variation in practices of and access to health promotion and disease prevention (P&P) across geographical areas have been studied in Thailand as well as other healthcare settings. The implementation of quality standards (QS)—a concise set of evidence-informed quality statements designed to drive and measure priority quality improvements—can be an option to solve the problem. This paper aims to provide an overview of the priority setting process of topic areas for developing QS and describes the criteria used. Topic selection consisted of an iterative process involving several steps and relevant stakeholders. Review of existing documents on the principles and criteria used for prioritising health technology assessment topics were performed. Problems with healthcare services were reviewed, and stakeholder consultation meetings were conducted to discuss current problems and comment on the proposed prioritisation criteria. Topics were then prioritised based on both empirical evidence derived from literature review and stakeholders’ experiences through a deliberative process. Preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and postpartum haemorrhage were selected. The three health problems had significant disease burden; were prevalent among pregnant women in Thailand; led to high mortality and morbidity in mothers and children and caused variation in the practices and service uptake at health facilities. Having agreed-on criteria is one of the important elements of the priority setting process. The criteria should be discussed and refined with various stakeholders. Moreover, key stakeholders, especially the implementers of QS initiative, should be engaged in a constructive way and should be encouraged to actively participate and contribute significantly in the process.

scholarly journals Methodology and criteria for setting national health research priorities in Bhutan: a workshop report

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-43
Author(s):  
Debbie L. Humphries ◽  
Hannah Ingber ◽  
Mongal Singh Gurung ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Medical University

The Bhutanese health system is committed to providing health services for all citizens and is interested in strengthening the country’s health research capacity. The objectives of this workshop were to understand the range of health research activities in Bhutan; to formulate a prioritized research agenda for the Ministry of Health (MoH); to share challenges, gaps and opportunities in health research; and to provide insights for future prioritization exercises. The MoH partnered with Khesar Gyalpo University of Medical University of Bhutan and USA-based facilitators to develop and pilot a methodology for health research priority setting.  The Bhutan priority setting process was adapted from the Combined Approach Matrix and the Essential National Health Research methods.  The methodology proved successful in the systematic creation of a list of health research priorities. Future priority setting processes will build on this workshop, continuing to refine and strengthen the priority setting process in Bhutan. 

Receptive rationing: reflections and suggestions for priority setters in health care

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 701-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iestyn Williams
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
External Stakeholders ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to take forward consideration of context in health care priority setting and to offer some practical strategies for priority setters to increase receptiveness to their work. Design/methodology/approach – A number of tools and methods have been devised with the aim of making health care priority setting more robust and evidence based. However, in order to routinely take and implement priority setting decisions, decision makers require the support, or at least the acquiescence, of key external parties. In other words, the priority setting process requires a receptive context if it is to proceed unhindered. Findings – The priority setting process requires a receptive context if it is to proceed unhindered. Originality/value – This paper develops the concept of legitimacy in the “authorising environment” in priority setting and describes strategies which might help decision makers to create a receptive context, and to manage relationships with external stakeholders.

scholarly journals Evidence-based priority setting

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Astley ◽  
Wendy Wake-Dyster
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Marginal Analysis ◽  
Community Values ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Combine Program ◽  
Program Budgeting

This paper describes evidence-based priority setting and resource allocation undertaken by a Division of the Women's & Children's Hospital, Adelaide during 1998-1999. We describe the methods used to combine program budgeting marginal analysis (PBMA), evidence based and "community values" approaches into one decision-making framework.Previous organisational changes involving the formation of multidisciplinary team and program management were pivotal in setting a framework to successfully complete the priority setting process.

What Really Sets Priorities?

2019 ◽  
pp. 45-66
Author(s):  
Jesse B. Bump
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
State Capacity ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The State ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Methods Of Analysis ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Participatory Processes

The practice of priority-setting in global health has evolved to include both helpful strengths and extraordinary weaknesses. This chapter explores how context and methods shape the priority-setting process and influence its outcomes through an historical analysis of four cases of decision-making about cholera and diarrheal diseases: in Jamaica in 1850, in London in 1866, by multilateral development agencies in the 1980s, and by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance in 2006. The chapter focuses on the nature of the state–citizen relationship, the type of evidence used, the methods of analysis employed, and the identity of those whose judgment is applied to explain variation in decision-making. Analyzing these examples suggests that priority-setting has evolved to become a narrow exercise incapable of reckoning broader problems, ill suited to assessing comprehensive solutions, and unlikely to contribute to the development of state capacity. Taken together, these findings argue for rethinking priority-setting methods to better account for a wider range of problems, more participatory processes, and more comprehensive solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document