ArticleTheoretical medicine and bioethics2008
Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts.
Article in Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ethical canary: narrow reflective equilibrium as a source of moral justification in healthcare priority-setting.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Integrating health technology assessment and the right to health: a qualitative content analysis of procedural values in South African judicial decisions.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Solidarity and cost management: Swiss citizens' reasons for priorities regarding health insurance coverage.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- Accountability for reasonableness: the relevance, or not, of exceptionality in resource allocation.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies.PharmacoEconomics · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been suggested that focusing on procedures when setting priorities for health care avoids the conflicts that arise when attempting to agree on principles. A prominent example of this approach is "accountability for reasonableness." We will argue that the same problem arises with procedural accounts; reasonable people will disagree about central elements in the process. We consider the procedural condition of appeal process and three examples of conflicts over coverage decisions: a patients' rights law in Norway, health technologies coverage recommendations in the UK, and care withheld by HMOs in the US. In each case a process is at the center of controversy, illustrating the difficulties in establishing procedures that are widely accepted as legitimate. Further work must be done in developing procedural frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18535922What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.