Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting
Abstract Background Governments are facing tough choices about whether to fund new, promising but highly expensive drugs within the public healthcare system. Decisions that some drugs are not sufficiently beneficial relative to their cost to merit public funding are often contentious. The importance...
Main Authors: | Eli Feiring, Hege Wang |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2018-05-01
|
Series: | BMC Health Services Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-3137-3 |
Similar Items
-
Can clinical ethics committees be legitimate actors in bedside rationing?
by: Morten Magelssen, et al.
Published: (2019-12-01) -
Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist
by: Maarten P.M. Jansen, et al.
Published: (2018-11-01) -
‘There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly’ – a qualitative study of clinicians’ beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation
by: Gloria Traina, et al.
Published: (2020-06-01) -
Global Developments in Priority Setting in Health
by: Rob Baltussen, et al.
Published: (2017-03-01) -
Should Priority Setting Also Be Concerned About Profound Socio-Economic Transformations? A Response to Recent Commentary
by: Brayan V. Seixas, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)