ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2017
Communal Sharing and the Provision of Low-Volume High-Cost Health Services: Results of a Survey.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies.Advances in therapy · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Using a discrete choice experiments to explore societal preferences for valuing new drugs for rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- 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
- Funding orphan medicinal products beyond price: sustaining an ecosystem.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
- Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first.Journal of market access & health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis paper suggests and tests a reason why the public might support the funding of services for rare diseases (SRDs) when the services are effective but not cost effective, i.e. when more health could be produced by allocating funds to other services. It is postulated that the fairness of funding a service is influenced by a comparison of the average patient benefit with the average cost to those who share the cost.
methodsSurvey respondents were asked to allocate a budget between cost-effective services that had a small effect upon a large number of relatively well patients and SRDs that benefited a small number of severely ill patients but were not cost effective because of their high cost.
resultsPart of the budget was always allocated to the SRDs. The budget share rose with the number sharing the cost. DISCUSSION: Sharing per se appears to characterise preferences. This has been obscured in studies that focus upon cost per patient rather than cost per person sharing the cost.
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.