首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of health planning and management >The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study
【24h】

The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study

机译:国家级卫生技术资助建议的发展:南澳大利亚案例研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives State governments often face capped budgets that can restrict expenditure on health technologies and their evaluation, yet many technologies are introduced to practice through state-funded institutions such as hospitals, rather than through national evaluation mechanisms. This research aimed to identify the criteria, evidence, and standards used by South Australian committee members to recommend funding for high-cost health technologies. Methods We undertook 8 semi-structured interviews and 2 meeting observations with members of state-wide committees that have a mandate to consider the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-cost health technologies. Results Safety and effectiveness were fundamental criteria for decision makers, who were also concerned with increasing consistency in care and equitable access to technologies. Committee members often consider evidence that is limited in quantity and quality; however, they perceive evaluations to be rigorous and sufficient for decision making. Precise standards for safety, effective, and cost-effectiveness could not be identified. Conclusions Consideration of new technologies at the state level is grounded in the desire to improve health outcomes and equity of access for patients. High quality evidence is often limited. The impact funding decisions have on population health is unclear due to limited use of cost-effectiveness analysis and unclear cost-effectiveness standards.
机译:目标州政府经常面临限制卫生技术支出及其评估的限制预算,但尚未通过医院等国家资助的机构练习许多技术,而不是通过国家评估机制。该研究旨在确定南澳大利亚委员会成员推荐为高成本卫生技术提供资金的标准,证据和标准。方法采用全国委员会成员进行了8个半结构化访谈和2个会议观察,该委员会有授权考虑高成本健康技术的安全,有效性和成本效益。结果安全和有效性是决策者的基本标准,他还涉及越来越多的护理和公平获取技术的一致性。委员会成员经常考虑数量和质量有限的证据;但是,他们认为评估是严谨性和足以做出决策的。无法确定安全,有效和成本效益的精确标准。结论在国家级新技术的考虑是为了提高患者的卫生成果和股权的愿望基础。高质量的证据通常有限。由于有限使用成本效益分析和不明确的成本效益标准,影响融资决策尚不清楚。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号