nach oben

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Erschienen in:

14.02.2020 | Symposium: Pharmaceutical Ethics

Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?

verfasst von: Narcyz Ghinea, Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge

Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Ausgabe 1/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Consumer engagement in decisions about the funding of medicines is often framed as a good in and of itself and as an activity that should be universally encouraged. A common justification for calls for consumer engagement is that it enhances equity. In this paper we systematically critique this assumption. We show that consumer engagement may undermine equity as well as enhance it and show that a simple relationship cannot be assumed but must be justified and demonstrated. In concluding, we present a number of challenges that need to be overcome in order for consumer engagement to contribute to health technology assessment in a morally and politically sound manner.

Abelson, J., F. Wagner, D. DeJean, et al. 2016. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 32(4): 256–264.PubMedCrossRef

Aggarwal, A., T. Fojo, C. Chamberlain, C. Davis, and R. Sullivan. 2017. Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?—Lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund. Annals of Oncology 28(8): 1738–1750.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2008. Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Charter-PDf.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2019.

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2014. Partnering with consumers: Embedding partnerships in health care. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Partnering-with-Consumers-Embedding-partnerships-in-health-care.pdf.

CADTH. 2017. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review patient engagement guide. https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pcodr/pCODR%27s%20Drug%20Review%20Process/pcodr-patient-engagement-guide.pdf.

Chieffi, A.L., R. Barradas, and M. Golbaum. 2017. Legal access to medications: A threat to Brazil’s public health system. BMC Health Services Research 17: 499.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Chim, L., G. Salkeld, P. Kelly, W. Lipworth, D. Hughes, and M. Stockler. 2017. Societal perspective on access to publicly subsidised medicines: A cross sectional survey of 3080 adults in Australia. PloS One 12(3): 1–24.CrossRef

Department of Health. 2019a. Online comments to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Last modified 31 January 2019. https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/PBAC_online_submission_form. .

Department of Health. 2019b. Health technology assessment, consumers and communities. Last modified April 2019. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/hta-1. Accessed May 20, 2019.

Department of Justice. 2007. Patients’ Rights Charter. http://www.justice.gov.za/VC/docs/policy/Patient%20Rights%20Charter.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2019.

Desser, A.S., D. Gyrd-Hansen, J.A. Olsen, S. Grepperud, and I.S. Kristiansen. 2010. Societal views on orphan drugs: Cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ 341: c5396CrossRef

Edgar, A. 2013. The dominance of big pharma: Power. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 16(2): 295–304.PubMedCrossRef

Fabbri, A., S. Swandari, E. Lau, A. Vitry, and B Mintzes. 2019. Pharmaceutical industry funding of health consumer groups in Australia: A cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Health Services 49(2): 273–293.PubMedCrossRef

Gagnon, M.P., M. Desmartis, D. Lepage-Savary, et al. 2011. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27(1): 31–42.PubMedCrossRef

Gauvin, F.P., J. Abelson, M. Giacomini, J. Eyles, and J.N. Lavis. 2011. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27(1): 43–49.PubMedCrossRef

Ghinea, N. 2019. Citizen science and the politicization of epistemology. The American Journal of Bioethics 19(8): 58–60.PubMedCrossRef

Ghinea, N., M. Little, and W. Lipworth. 2017. Access to high cost cancer medicines through the lens of an Australian senate inquiry—Defining the “goods” at stake. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14(3): 401–410.PubMedCrossRef

Hailey, D., S. Werko, R. Bakri, et al. 2013. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 29(1): 79–83.PubMedCrossRef

Health Technology Assessment International. 2014. Values and standards for patient involvement in HTA. https://htai.org/interest-groups/pcig/values-and-standards/ Accessed April 8, 2019.

IMS Institute. 2014. Impact of cost-per-QALY reimbursement criteria on access to cancer drugs. https://www.redaccionmedica.com/contenido/images/IMS_Institute_Report_on_CPQ_Impact_on_Access_to_Cancer_Drugs.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2019.

Johnson L. 2018. “Lives are on the line”: Cystic fibrosis patients file class action lawsuit for $250K-a-year drug. CBC News, July 24.

Lau, E., A. Fabbri, and B Mintzes. 2018. How do health consumer organisations in Australia manage pharmaceutical industry sponsorship? A cross-sectional study. Australian Health Review 43(4): 474–480.CrossRef

Linley, W.G, and D.A. Hughes. 2013. 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 Economics 22(8):948–964.PubMedCrossRef

Mackenzie, R., S. Chapman, G. Salkeld, and S. Holding. 2008. Holding. Media influence on Herceptin subsidization in Australia: Application of the rule of rescue? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101(6): 305–312.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

McCoy, M.S, M. Carniol, K. Chockley, J.W. Urwin, E.J. Emanuel, and H. Schmidt. 2017. Conflicts of interest for patient-advocacy organizations. The New England Journal of Medicine 376: 880–885.CrossRefPubMed

Morris, M., G. Loney, and A. Pancia. 2018. Cystic fibrosis patients get subsidised access to $250,000 drug. ABC News, August 18.

NHS England. 2017. Patient and public participation in commissioning health and care. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/patient-and-public-participation-guidance.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2019. 2017. Involving people in their own health and care. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ppp-involving-people-health-care-guidance.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2019.

Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee. 2015. Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Cancer_Drugs/Report. Accessed May 20, 2019.

Wale, J., A.M. Scott, B. Hofmann, S. Garner, E. Low, and L. Sansom. 2017. Why patients should be involved in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33(1): 1–4.PubMedCrossRef

Wilson, J. 2011. Health inequities. In Public health ethics: Key concepts and issues in policy and practice, edited by A. Dawson, 211–230. Cambridge University Press.

World Health Organization. 1978. Declaration of Alma-Ata. https://www.who.int/publications/almaata_declaration_en.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2019.

World Health Organization. 1994. A declaration on the promotion of patients’ rights in Europe. https://www.who.int/genomics/public/eu_declaration1994.pdf?ua=1. Accessed May 20, 2019.

Wortley, S., J. Wale, D. Grainger, and P. Murphy. 2017. Moving beyond the rhetoric of patient input in health technology assessment deliberations. Australian Health Review 41(2): 170–172.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?
verfasst von: Narcyz Ghinea
Wendy Lipworth
Ian Kerridge
Publikationsdatum: 14.02.2020
Verlag: Springer Singapore
Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Ausgabe 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Elektronische ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-09962-1

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Pharmaceutical Ethics and Grassroots Activism in the United States: A Social History Perspective

Beyond Mendelian Genetics: Anticipatory Biomedical Ethics and Policy Implications for the Use of CRISPR Together with Gene Drive in Humans

The Consent Form in the Chinese CRISPR Study: In Search of Ethical Gene Editing

Cui Bono?

New Zealand Policy on Frozen Embryo Disputes

Balancing Interests in Healthcare