Article Text
Abstract
Background: Priority setting is necessary in current healthcare services. Discussion of fair process has highlighted the value of developing reasons for allocation decisions on the basis of experience gained from real cases.
Aim: To identify the reasons that those with experience of real decision-making concerning resource allocation think relevant in deciding on the priority of a new but expensive drug treatment.
Methods: Semistructured interviews with members of committees with responsibility for making resource allocation decisions at a local level in the British National Health Service, analysed using modified grounded theory.
Results: 22 interviews were carried out. 14 reasons were identified. Four reasons were almost universally considered most important: cost effectiveness; clinical effectiveness; equality and gross cost. No one reason was considered dominant. Some considerations, such as political directives and fear of litigation, were thought by many participants to distort decision-making. There was a substantial lack of agreement over the relevance of some reasons, such as the absence of alternative treatment for the condition.
Conclusions: There is a clear consensus on the importance and role of a limited number of reasons in allocation decisions among participants. A focus on the process of decision-making, however, does not obviate the need for those involved in the process to engage with problematical ethical issues, nor for the importance of further ethical analysis.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
Funding: This study was funded by the Danish Council for Research.
Ethics approval: This study was approved by the Applied and Qualitative Research Ethics Committee, Oxford, UK.
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics and opportunity costs: have NICE grasped the ethics of priority setting?
- Achieving high-quality universal health coverage: a perspective from the National Health Service in England
- NICE's cost effectiveness threshold
- The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)
- Justice and the NICE approach
- How can we decide a fair allocation of healthcare resources during a pandemic?
- The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process
- The reduced cost of providing a nationally recognised service for familial hypercholesterolaemia
- All health is not equal: the use of modifiers in NICE technology appraisal
- NICE is dead; long live NICE