ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2017
The (Ir)relevance of Group Size in Health Care Priority Setting: A Reply to Juth.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Prioritising time for communication in healthcare-a normative analysis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Should Severity Assessments in Healthcare Priority Setting be Risk- and Time-Sensitive?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2023Article
- Principles for Just Prioritization of Expensive Biological Therapies in the Danish Healthcare System.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
- Why We Don't Need "Unmet Needs"! On the Concepts of Unmet Need and Severity in Health-Care Priority Setting.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of letermovir for the prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus in adult cytomegalovirus seropositive recipients undergoing allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Italy.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
- Prioritising, Ranking and Resource Implementation - A Normative Analysis.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How to handle orphan drugs for rare diseases is a pressing problem in current health-care. Due to the group size of patients affecting the cost of treatment, they risk being disadvantaged in relation to existing cost-effectiveness thresholds. In an article by Niklas Juth it has been argued that it is irrelevant to take indirectly operative factors like group size into account since such a compensation would risk discounting the use of cost, a relevant factor, altogether. In this article we analyze Juth's argument and observe that we already do compensate for indirectly operative factors, both outside and within cost-effectiveness evaluations, for formal equality reasons. Based on this we argue that we have reason to set cost-effectiveness thresholds to integrate equity concerns also including formal equality considerations. We find no reason not to compensate for group size to the extent we already compensate for other factors. Moreover, groups size implying a systematic disadvantage also on a global scale, i.e. taking different aspects of the health condition of patients suffering from rare diseases into account, will provide strong reason for why group size is indeed relevant to compensate for (if anything).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.