Health Care Priorities: The Community's Preferences For Using Community Preferences
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$52,355.00
Summary
Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use ....Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use of their preferences in informing health care priorities needs to be investigated. Four specific questions will be addressed in this study: (i) do members of the general public feel that, as individuals, they have a legitimate role to play in informing priority decisions in health care? if so why? if not, why not? (ii) does the nature-level-setting of the decisions for which priorities are to be set affect whether individual members of the public would wish to participate in the priority setting process? (e.g. different health services, medical procedures-treatments, diseases) (iii) whose preferences should be used if not the community's? (iv) faced ex post with the preferences of the community and the preferences (possibly different) of health service decision makers (i.e. Oexperts'), does this knowledge affect preferences for having community preferences count? A number of health authorities are currently looking for ways of engaging local communities in health care decision making. This study will indicate the appropriate levels at which community preferences are to be elicited and the type of decisions and settings in which they are most relevant.Read moreRead less
Certain Death In Uncertain Time: A Qualitative Study Of The Experience Of Advanced Ovarian Cancer.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$221,755.00
Summary
Modern medicine aims to find effective treatments for life-threatening diseases. Cures are seldom found, however. More typically, rapidly fatal diseases gradually become less rapidly fatal. Consequently, there is a category of patients who are certain they will die from their disease or a related factor, but who are equally uncertain as to whether they have weeks or years left to live. It is difficult to discuss this predicament because we do not even have a name for it, let alone a useful termi ....Modern medicine aims to find effective treatments for life-threatening diseases. Cures are seldom found, however. More typically, rapidly fatal diseases gradually become less rapidly fatal. Consequently, there is a category of patients who are certain they will die from their disease or a related factor, but who are equally uncertain as to whether they have weeks or years left to live. It is difficult to discuss this predicament because we do not even have a name for it, let alone a useful terminology to describe it. The absence of discussion exacerbates patients' social isolation. Also, the quality of their remaining life, and the quality of the care they get, depends heavily on the quality of understanding and communication within the social systems that support them. A growing proportion of patients in developed countries fall into this category, including the 1200 Australian women who are diagnosed each year with advanced ovarian cancer. This study aims to increase our understanding of the experience of certain death in uncertain time by recruiting a group of 20 women with advanced ovarian cancer, and interviewing them every few months over three years. The study will explore all aspects of the experience of having advanced ovarian cancer, and generate a terminology for it - one that grows out of the women's own language. The study will inform the organisation and delivery of clinical care and services to women with ovarian cancer. It will also inform patient education programs, and help to tune medical education to the particular needs and perceptions of patients who are experiencing the certainty of death in uncertain time. Finally, the researchers will also explore the implications of the findings for medical ethics and health law, and for communication, information and decision-making in cancer medicine.Read moreRead less
Using Evidence To Set Priorities In Health: An Analysis Of Decisions Of The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$174,575.00
Summary
Australia has pioneered the use of rigorous clinical and economic evidence in the evaluation of drugs prior to funding on our nationally subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In the ten years since the introduction of the requirement that drugs demonstrate cost effectiveness prior to subsidy being granted there has been no formal independent evaluation of the system to assess its performance. This project will examine the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in ....Australia has pioneered the use of rigorous clinical and economic evidence in the evaluation of drugs prior to funding on our nationally subsidised Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. In the ten years since the introduction of the requirement that drugs demonstrate cost effectiveness prior to subsidy being granted there has been no formal independent evaluation of the system to assess its performance. This project will examine the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in the last decade and consider the factors that explain those decisions. At times it has been asserted that those decisions have been arbitrary or based on inappropriate considerations such as the financial cost to government or politics of the day rather than the value for money of the drug in question. We will examine the reasons behind the decisions against the objectives of providing access to life enhancing medicines in a cost effective manner. We will look at what are the key determinants of whether a drug is recommended for listing on the PBS or is rejected. A key focus will be on whether those determinants could be described as legitimate in terms of their consistency with the objectives of the scheme. For example whether the main cause of rejection is a lack of high quality evidence on effectiveness- cost effectiveness or simply because of factors such as the high financial cost to government. The project will create a database of all submissions to the PBAC 1992-2004 that will allow us to explore a number of questions about the effectiveness of the decision making process in using evidence on effectiveness and costs in health more broadly as well as those specific to the PBS. In highlighting some of the problems with the evidence and its interpretation the overall aim is to improve the quality of the decision making process in the future.Read moreRead less